Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FISH SUPPLIES (DOCK LABOUR)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to increase the supply of labour at the fish docks, in order that the fish that is being caught may reach the consumers.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Butler): The supply of labour at the fish docks has been increased from time to time as required, particularly during the past few weeks when fish landings have been abnormally heavy. My latest information is that the present number of fish dock porters is sufficient for immediate needs, but I have sent an officer to Grimsby to make urgent inquiries into the position. The position at all the fish docks is being closely watched in conjunction with the National Dock Labour Corporation, and if necessary the labour force will be further strengthened.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some two months ago the Admiralty released a number of trawlers in order that more fish should be landed, and, at the same time, his predecessor did not supply adequate labour to unload the fish, as a result of which a quantity of fish has been thrown back into the sea?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the composite picture presented by my hon. Friend as being exactly accurate.

Mr. Muff: Has my right hon. Friend sent an inspector to the premier fishing port of Britain—Hull?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to pay an unsolicited testimonial to Hull and say that the position there is not so difficult as it is at Grimsby.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Lowestoft there is labour available, and adequate port facilities which are not being used; and will he divert some of the trawlers to Lowestoft, and land fish there?

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman note the belated but useful conversion of the Economic League to the necessity of Government control if the people are to be properly fed?

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the statement that fish has been thrown away?

Mr. Butler: A certain amount of fish has been destroyed. This is not only due to difficulties of labour. There are various other considerations. For instance, at Grimsby a large number of Danish trawlers called during May and there were too many to be discharged at once. Apart from that, there are other difficulties and there have been certain incidents of the type referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDWIVES

5. Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that hospitals are having to turn away expectant mothers because of a shortage of midwives, which means a shortage of maternity beds; and will he take immediate steps to remedy this position.

Mr. Butler: I have no specific information that hospitals are taking the action stated, but would gladly make inquiry in any individual case if my hon. Friend will send me details.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to see that, if the Services require nurses, those nurses with midwives' certificates are not sent abroad but are retained in this country?

Mr. Butler: I will take note of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTED WORKERS

Mr. Austin Hopkins on: asked the Minister of Labour why the mule-spinner, whose name has been communicated to


him, is to be forced to resume that occupation, in spite of the fact that he left it under medical advice when symptoms of spinners' cancer appeared some years ago; and if he is aware that the man then qualified himself for skilled work on munitions, which he performed to the satisfaction of his employers, and that a return to spinning will expose him to the danger of a slow and painful death.

Mr. Butler: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member. The direction issued to this man to return to the cotton industry is being suspended meanwhile.

Mr. Hopkins on: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this man, in any circumstances, under the Restoration of Trade Practices Act, has been forced out of his present occupation?

Mr. Butler: I am making inquiries, particularly as I realise the importance which the hon. Member attaches to this case. When I have made the inquiries, I will communicate with him.

12.Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can say approximately how many men and women are now in employment who have been directed by the National Service officer to work away from their homes.

Mr. Butler: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — RELEASE AND RESETTLEMENT

Booklet

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: asked the Minister of Labour how soon the distribution of the booklet, "Release and Resettlement," to the Services will be completed; and how soon copies will be made available to the public.

Mr. Butler: Sufficient copies of the booklet have already been issued for distribution in the Navy and the R.A.F. Receipt of copies by individuals will of course depend upon their location. In the case of the Army where larger numbers are required, it will be a few weeks before all the booklets are issued. Sales to the public will commence as soon as the Services have been supplied.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it intended to grant any further priority for the release and resettlement of Socialist politicians?

Education and Training Schemes

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient training facilities available to implement the further education and training schemes available to the Services and industrial workers on demobilisation.

Mr. Butler: In general I am satisfied that the training facilities should be adequate, but in respect of certain professions there is likely to be a shortage of accommodation and tutorial staff. I am, however, watching the situation closely in conjunction with the other Ministers concerned.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the men from the Far East, who will be demobilised at a later stage, so that they will have a right to that training?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Major Sir Goronwy Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that teachers of low category are being retained in the Services and sent to the Far East? Would it not be better to retain them in this country so that they can get on with the work of education?

Mr. Butler: That raises a broad question concerning the whole matter of release and the general policy which has been laid down.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the fact that there are large numbers of men between 19 and 26 in the Forces, will my right hon. Friend consider shortened courses for the other professions, such as he established for teachers? Otherwise, it will be impossible to cope with the chronic shortage of trained personnel.

Mr. Butler: I will bear in mind every aspect of this important matter, one aspect of which I studied in my previous incarnation.

Building Industry

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has been able to make with the employers and trades union organisations to attract men to the building industry in view of urgent need for building operatives.

Mr. Butler: Arrangements have been concluded with the two sides of the building industry under which men without previous experience may have six months' intensive training in a training centre, followed by 14 months' further training and experience in the industry on a progressive scale of wages, after which they will be accepted as fully skilled craftsmen.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that does not quite answer my Question? Does he think that the arrangements offered to these men will be sufficiently attractive to bring them into the building industry?

Mr. Butler: I think they will. These arrangements have been made by agreement and have the support of the industry, and I trust that they will have the desired result.

Royal Ordnance Factory, Spennymoor

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of ex-Servicemen and prisoners of war have received notice at the Spennymoor Royal Ordnance Factory and will terminate their employment at an early date; and what steps he is taking to give these men employment.

Mr. Butler: I am having inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that I saw five of these men last Saturday evening; that some have been prisoners of war in Germany for four-and-a-half years, that they have worked for a short time in this factory, and have now been stood off? Will he do something to find them employment, as this is a poor reward for the services they have rendered?

Mr. Butler: I will note the information the hon. Member has given me, and, adding it to the information I shall obtain from inquiries, I will do my best for these men.

Groups

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether the groups to be demobilised under the Government Scheme will all come out at the same time in each of the three Services.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As was pointed out in the White Paper and in the Debate on the 16th May, military considerations make it necessary for release to proceed at different rates in the different Services.

Sir G. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend give as much information as he can on this subject in view of the great interest taken in it?

Mr. Butler: I cannot at the moment improve upon the statement made by my predecessor, but of course I shall endeavour to give the House full information on this question, which affects everybody concerned very closely.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour if service in the Merchant Navy will be taken into account in determining the group release number of a man who subsequently joined the Army.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Service in the Merchant Navy since 3rd September, 1939, will be taken into account.

Control of Engagement Order

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Labour whether, under the new Control of Engagement Order, men and women will be subject to direction to any part of the country and for any form of industrial activity.

Mr. Butler: The new Control of Engagement Order requires in general that engagements be made through the Ministry of Labour and National Service and does not in itself relate to the power of direction under Regulation 58A. Whilst the power of direction is being retained, the new Order enables its use to be dispensed with as far as possible and its use will be limited to directing persons to essential work of the highest urgency. Directions to work away from home will be used only where there is no alternative.

Mr. Austin Hopkins on: Has the right hon. Gentleman any hope that with a change of Government, an end will be put to this business, which reduces the workers to a state of serfdom?

COAL DISTRIBUTION TRADE (DISPUTE)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a dispute exists between the workpeople and the employers represented on the Joint Industrial Council for the coal distribution trade in Kent, Surrey and Sussex because of the low margins allowed


by the Ministry of Fuel and Power; and will he take steps with the authorities concerned to prevent a stoppage of work.

Mr. Butler: I am aware that in declaring their inability to accede to a wage claim by the trade unions the employers have given the reason stated. As regards the second part of the Question, my Department has been in touch with the two sides on the matter and every effort will be made to assist towards an amicable settlement.

Mr. Edwards: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to contact the Minister of Fuel and Power to see if the margins can be increased, in order that the wages laid down as a result of agreement can be paid to the men concerned?

Mr. Butler: It must be taken that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has had regard to all the relevant facts in fixing these margins.

JOINT PRODUCTION COMMITTEES

Sir G. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour how many Joint Production Committees there are in Wolver Hampton, Willenhall and Wednesfield; how far they are actively operating; and what steps he is taking to secure that such councils in general remain a permanent feature of our industrial organisation.

Mr. Butler: The establishment of joint production committees and similar bodies is a matter of voluntary arrangement between the employers and workers concerned, and no detailed information is available as to the number of such committees in any particular area, or the work they are doing. As regards the last part of the Question, it will be my policy to encourage the widest measure of co-operation between employers and workpeople, but the development and maintenance of works committees and similar bodies for this purpose will rest finally on the mutual desire and good will of those concerned.

Sir G. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can, by persuasion and negotiation, to persuade those concerned to carry on these committees?

Mr. Butler: Naturally we like to see them, and we trust there will be the necessary good will and desire for them on the part of the parties concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Sites

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Health what is the total area of land required by Eastbourne Town Council for housing purposes in addition to three acres at the junction of Church dale Road and Northbourne Road; what area of this land has been acquired; and if he will state the purchase price and the previous rateable value.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): None of the 37½ acres still required has yet been finally acquired for housing purposes, but sites totalling about seven acres have been or are being appropriated from other statutory purposes. I regret that in these latter cases it is not possible to give the particulars asked for in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Stokes: Why is it not possible to give the information? If I put the Question down again, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to provide the information at a later date?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. Appropriation takes place on the basis of current value and not on an apportioned part of the original purchase price. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in the case of appropriation the conditions are different.

Mr. Stokes: Why is it not permissible to tell the House what the appropriation value was?

Mr. Willink: Because my hon. Friend has asked for the purchase price, which is not relevant.

Mr. Stokes: If I put a Question down asking for the appropriation price, will the Minister tell us that?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Health why it was necessary for the L.C.C. to resort to a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of 921 acres on the Oxhey site at Watford for post-war housing; what price is being paid for this land; and what was its previous rateable value.

Mr. Willink: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10th May.

Mr. Stokes: As that answer was not an oral one delivered in the House, and never reached me, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, or must I look it up in Hansard?

Hammersmith

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health (1) what steps he will take to provide housing immediately for the people of Hammersmith and, in particular, for two families living in overcrowded conditions, particulars of which have been sent to him;
(2) whether he is aware that at an address in North Hammersmith, which has been communicated to him, six people are sleeping in one room and a seventh member of the family is shortly coming home on leave from the Forces; and what steps he is taking to deal with such cases.

Mr. Willink: Inquiries have been made into the three cases to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention. I have in response to the application of the local authority concerned allocated to them 250 temporary houses to supplement the programme for permanent houses which they have formulated. I have also delegated to the clerks to all local authorities power to requisition suitable property for the accommodation of those inadequately housed. Individual applications should be made to the local authority whom I have asked to examine the cases submitted by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House how he intends to deal with requisitioned property for the inadequately housed, when, in many metropolitan boroughs, there is not sufficient property to requisition for the bombed-out families; and what is going to happen to the inadequately-housed families in one borough, when he brings to it families from other boroughs?

Mr. Willink: There are arrangements made through the Regional organisation whereby local authority boundaries become for this purpose by no means final.

Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many houses have actually been allocated, and how many have actually been built?

Lettings (Tenants with Young Children)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now aware that

landlords and their agents are making a practice of letting dwellings for preference to tenants without young children, as a result of which those with young children find it impossible to get accommodation; and if he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with this problem.

Mr. Willink: The number of complaints I have received does not lead me to believe that the practice to which the hon. Member refers is widespread or that additional powers are necessary. I am, however, keeping the matter under review, and I have, some while ago, delegated to local authorities power to requisition accommodation for people inadequately housed.

Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman distribute in some accessible form, through the Press or otherwise, information about this power to requisition; and will he get somebody to come down out of the clouds and realise that in every street in every town in Britain to-day landlords are saying, "You cannot have that house if you have got children"?

Mr. Willink: I have considered this problem and have had some inquiry made into the range and scope of it; and in quite a number of cases I have found that the unwillingness to have families with children added to the existing tenants is reasonable. The property is very often unsuitable for the additional numbers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I have found such cases. On the other hand I feel certain that the hon. and learned Member would entirely appreciate the extreme difficulty of legislation on a a matter such as this. It is rather a matter for administration and the best possible administrative use of the very much reduced accommodation there is, particularly in the hon. Member's area.

Mr. Pritt: Is it the policy of the Government and of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department that in my constituency and in every industrial and urban constituency poor women with one or two children have to tramp round and round from agent to agent; and is he going to do nothing in this matter?

Mr. Willink: I think the hon. and learned Member will have understood from my answer that local authorities


have power to requisition property for those inadequately housed, including those to Whom he is referring.

Mr. Ede: Cannot the Minister give us any indication of how far these powers of requisition are in use?

Mr. Willink: That would be possible, if I were given notice.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that if local authorities themselves would build council houses, people with children could get in? Is it not also true that a good many people—

Mr. Speaker: That sounds like the beginning of a speech and not a question.

Viscountess Astor: I was asking the Minister a second supplementary question.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he last drew the attention of local government authorities to these powers and, if it is a long time ago, will he draw their attention to them now?

Mr. Willink: I am quite prepared to look into the question whether local authorities are familiar with these powers. My impression is, however, that they are fully aware of them and are exercising them.

Mr. Silverman: They do not use them.

Flats, Brighton

32. Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Minister of Health why he has not been able to authorise the Brighton Council to requisition the flats known as Embassy Court; whether he is aware that 20 out of 69 flats there come under the Rent Restrictions Act and of the extreme hardship the unreasonable raising of the rent and the refusal to accept less than a seven years' agreement is causing the wives and children of men serving abroad and recently demobilised and invalided soldiers.

Mr. Willink: I do not consider that it would be proper to exercise the powers of the Defence Regulations in a case of this kind. The tenants of such of the flats as fall within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts have the protection given them by those Acts. To requisition the building in order to control the rents and

lettings of the remaining flats would be in effect to extend the limits of the Acts as fixed by Parliament. I may remind my hon. Friend that the report of the Ridley Committee does not recommend any such extension.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Does the answer mean that it is impossible to requisition particular flats without requisitioning the whole building, even though they come within the Rent Restrictions Act?

Mr. Willink: There would be no point, in this connection, in requisitioning flats that are within the Rent Restrictions Acts, as their rents are controlled. With regard to the other point, I see considerable difficulty in requisitioning, at high cost to the community, blocks of flats of the nature referred to, in order to allow those who obtained the flats when rents were low to have continued occupation.

Requisitioned Property (Rents)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the arrangements being made in Southend and other coastal areas under which the local authorities are taking over requisitioned property from the War Department to house bombed-out people; and whether he will ensure that the rental paid for such requisitioned property shall be brought up to the standard level of 1939 in those cases where it was taken over at lower rents by the War Department during the time when Southend was a defence area and partly evacuated.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th May.

Ex-Servicemen

Sir G. Mander: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to secure that a high proportion of all houses built shall be made available for Servicemen returning home; and if he has taken any census as to how far local authorities are doing this.

Mr. Willink: I have been discussing with the Service Departments and representatives of local authorities the steps to be taken to meet in the most effective manner the housing requirements of men released from the Services; and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Sir G. Mander: Does that mean that my right hon. and learned Friend is also discussing the matter with the local authorities, to see what steps they are taking? Is he aware that Wolver Hampton, for example, is reserving 75 per cent. of the houses for Servicemen?

Mr. Willink: I am not aware of that particular fact, but discussions with the local authorities have been found an effective means of dealing with such matters.

Major Lloyd: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that quite a number of Servicemen coming back cannot get into their own homes because of the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, we are considering this problem at the moment.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorse the view that people cannot get into their own homes, when they need those homes, because of the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. Willink: That was the view expressed by the majority of the Ridley Committee.

CANVEY ISLAND U.D.C. (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that his decision to withhold further financial assistance from the Canvey Island Urban District Council means an increase in the rates of 6s. in the £, making a total rate of 23s. 6d. in the £ and entails the dismissal of 25 per cent. of the existing council staff; is he satisfied that his action is in accordance with the Government pledges to assist districts affected financially by the war; and will he reconsider his decision.

Mr. Willink: The estimates originally submitted to my Department showed that it would be necessary for the council to levy a rate of 21s. 1d. in 1945–46, but I understand that the council have recently revised those estimates to provide for expenditure which will involve a total rate of 22s. 6d. The increase attributable to loss of productivity of rates is only about 3d. in the £ and this is insufficient to justify an offer of special financial assistance from the Exchequer.

Mr. Raikes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Canvey

Island suffered considerably financially during the war through being a prohibited area, and that as a result of that, the financial position in Canvey is very serious; and is he further aware that the ratepayers in Canvey, especially the lower middle class type, are very poor?

Mr. Willink: I gather that my hon. Friend is challenging the statement that the increase due to loss of rate productivity is only 3d. in the £.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Child Welfare Centre, Upminster

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the child welfare centre at Up Minster has been closed; that this causes great inconvenience to mothers in the neighbourhood; and whether steps will be taken to reopen it.

Mr. Willink: I understand that the centre re-opened on 16th May and is housed temporarily in a local school. The lease of the previous accommodation could not be extended and every effort is being made to secure suitable permanent premises.

Tuberculosis Patients (Accommodation)

28. Mr. Hammersley: asked the Minister of Health whether steps can now be taken to deal with the large number of tuberculosis patients in Middlesex whose treatment is being delayed owing to insufficient hospital accommodation.

Mr. Willink: The problem to which my hon. Friend refers is not confined to Middlesex and is receiving my constant and anxious attention. I am taking all possible steps, in close collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, to ease the situation, but great difficulties are caused by the present demands on building labour and material and the dearth of nursing and domestic staff.

Mr. Hammersley: Are we to understand that there will be some rapid amelioration of the situation?

Mr. Willink: I hope the amelioration will be progressive, but I cannot promise that it will be rapid.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are


several evacuated American military hospitals which have been turned over to the military and which would make excellent sanatoria?

Mr. Willink: I shall be glad to look into that.

War-time Nurseries

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to continue war-time nurseries, as a peace-time service with Government grant, to meet the needs of mothers whose husbands were killed or seriously injured in the war or by industrial accidents and have themselves to go to work, of mothers too ill to give full attention to their children, and of those whose housing accommodation make it impossible to provide proper play-time conditions for young children, free from the danger of the streets.

Mr. Willink: Welfare authorities are already empowered, by the Public Health Act, 1936, to make provision, subject to my general approval, for the care of children who have not attained the age of five years and are not being educated in schools recognised by the Minister of Education. I should be prepared to approve the establishment of a nursery under these powers provided that it does not prejudice or interfere with the provision of nursery schools or classes.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon and learned Gentleman prepared to sanction the use of existing war nurseries which have been specially provided for the purpose?

Mr. Willink: The conditions with regard to existing war nurseries may, of course, change in peace-time.

Water Supply, Flecknoe

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Health when it is contemplated that the main water supply will be brought to the village of Flecknoe, in the Rugby Division.

Mr. Willink: I am informed by the Rugby rural district council, which is the responsible local authority, that they will have regard to the needs of this village when framing their proposals for extensions of piped supplies in their district.

Mr. Brown: When will this situation be liquidated?

Mr. Willink: "Liquidation" is no doubt the appropriate word. I have given very great attention to the question of rural water supply, as has indeed this House, when and since the Act was framed. As the hon. Member no doubt knows, there are facilities for ratepayers to represent that authorities are failing in their duty.

Hospital (Complaint)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the neglect of Lady Russell's son in a cottage hospital under his control; and will he give the name of the hospital and cause an inquiry to be made.

Mr. Willink: I have seen statements in the medical and lay press on the matter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I have no clue to the cottage hospital involved.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Since I am not allowed at Question Time to convey information but only to seek it, may I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards and tell him?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would let me know the name of the cottage hospital, without an interview.

Medical Man-Power (Services)

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Health the number of medical men and women who have been enlisted into the medical services of the Navy, Army and Air Force, respectively, from the beginning of the war in 1939 to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Willink: The numbers of medical men and women recruited from Great Britain and Northern Ireland into the medical branches of the Services up to 24th May last are 2,405 in the Royal Navy, 12,200 in the Army and 2,564 in the Royal Air Force, making a total of 17,169. The figure for the Army includes a number recruited for work with the Indian Medical Service.

Dr. Haden Guest: What proportion do the doctors recruited into the Fighting Services bear to the total number of active medical practitioners on the register?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps it would be helpful to give the answer under two categories. The proportion of the total number recruited to the total on the register is 27·5 per cent. The proportion or the number recruited to the total number of active practitioners is 31·3 per cent. The proportion of general practitioners in the Services is 21.4 per cent.

Professor Savory: Is the Minister able to give separate figures for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, not without notice.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Health the number of medical men and women who are expected to be demobilised in the first six months after 18th June; and whether this number of doctors will be enough to provide for the needs of the civil population.

Mr. Willink: I am not yet able to give the number asked for by the hon. Member. It depends on various factors, including the decision of the Service Departments as to whether an officer's retention is necessary on military grounds.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the Ministry of Health specially asked for the demobilisation of medical officers by special process?

Mr. Willink: I could not answer that question adequately without notice.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is it the fact that general duty medical officers, that is, apart from specialists, are to be demobilised according to the formula age-length of service and do the Class B releases apply only to specialists and special categories?

Mr. Willink: I feel that my hon. Friend is rather going outside his Question. Perhaps he will give me notice of that point.

Mr. Palmer: Are any civilian doctors to be called up?

Mr. Willink: I should not like to give a reply on that point but it may very well be that it will be right and just that those who have not been out should take their turn.

Lieut.-Colonel Henry Guest: Is it not the case that many of these hospitals are understaffed?

Mr. Speaker: That is another point.

Medical Personnel (Priority) Committee

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Health the composition of the Medical Personnel (Priority) Committee; and whether the work of this committee is to be continued.

Mr. Willink: The Medical Personnel (Priority) Committee consists of the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), as Chairman, and twelve medical men representing the several branches of the profession and the Service Departments. With permission I will circulate the names in the Official Report. The Committee and its chairman have done most valuable work and there is no intention of bringing it to an end so long as general questions affecting the release and continued recruitment of doctors are still likely to arise for their consideration.

The members of the Committee are:

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, Bt., M.P., Chairman.

Sir Girling Ball, F.R.C.S., Dean, Medical Faculty, St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

Professor J. Crighton Bramwell, M.D., F.R.C.P., Dean, Medical Faculty, Manchester University.

Major General R. J. Blackham, C.B., C.M.G., C.I.E., D.S.O. M.D., War Office.

J. A. Brown, M.D., General Practitioner, Birmingham.

W. M. Knox, M.B., Ch.B., General Practitioner, Glasgow.

Surgeon Rear Admiral A. E. Malone, M.B., D.P.H., Admiralty.

Air Commodore D. McLaren, M.B., Ch.B., Air Ministry.

Professor R. M. F. Picken, M.B., B.Sc., D.P.H., Mansell Talbot Professor of Preventive Medicine, Welsh National School of Medicine.

Professor Sydney Smith, C.B.E., M.D., F.R.C.P., D.P.H., F.R.C.S., Dean, Medical Faculty. Edinburgh University.

Sir Alfred Webb-Johnson, Bt., K.C.V.O., C.B.E., D.S.O., President, Royal College of Surgeons.

The Lord Moran, M.C., M.D., President, Royal College of Physicians.

H. S. Souttar, C.B.E., D.M., F.R.C.S., Past Chairman of the Central Medical War Committee.

Sanatorium Nurses (Conditions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been


called to the conditions of nurses in tuberculosis sanatoria; what is the minimum age for such nurses; how it compares with that for other nursing; if he has particulars respecting the number of nurses who catch this disease; and what precautions are urged on all hospitals to safeguard nurses, especially young nurses.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. In co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, I have had under consideration the conditions in a number of sanatoria. Many are satisfactory; others have defects that could be remedied only by building that cannot at present be undertaken; others are in isolated situations, so that the provision of certain amenities is difficult. Such steps as are practicable in present circumstances are being taken to remedy these defects. There is no prescribed minimum age either for tuberculosis nursing or for other types of nursing. It is preferable that girls undertaking nursing should not be under 18, and the Athlone Committee, which reported in 1938, considered that 17 should be the minimum age. Statistics as to the incidence of tuberculosis among sanatorium nurses are not available, but the general opinion of experts is that the sanatorium nurse is at no greater risk than other nurses. An inquiry is in progress, under the auspices of the Joint Tuberculosis Council. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Circular that I issued in March of last year, on the subject of the last part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that quite a number of medical experts, including medical officers of health, declare that some of the younger nurses are more prone to catch this disease than the older ones? Will he give an assurance that he will pay particular care to the incidence of this disease among nurses, particularly among young girls, and will he ensure that no girls under 18 are employed as nurses in sanatoria?

Mr. Willink: On the first point, I am sure that the inquiry will take into account the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member. On the second point, he will understand that I must have notice on a question of that kind.

BOWLING INSTITUTION, BRADFORD (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that his inspectors who visited the Bowling Institution, Bradford, passed strictures upon its administration; if he has considered the report of the special committee set up by the Bradford Corporation; and if he has accepted that report.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I have already told the council that as the services of the Master terminate at the end of the present quarter in the ordinary way, I am not prepared to concur in their recommendation that he should foe removed from his post. I am communicating further with the council in regard to the remaining recommendations, with which I am in general agreement.

LONDON GOVERNMENT (COMMITTEE)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Health whether he will defer the proceedings of the Committee on London Government, presided over by Lord Reading, until after the General Election.

Mr. Willink: I understand that the Committee have arranged not to meet until after the General Election.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (BADGE)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability; as a recognition of service and suffering, of issuing a distinguishing badge to be worn by repatriated British prisoners of war.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.

TANKS (INSPECTION BY MEMBERS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange for an inspection by Members of this House of German King Tiger, Tiger and Panther tanks, together with the American Sherman and British types A22, A27 Comet and any other types he deems interesting.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: May I do rather an unusual thing, and thank the Prime Minister for his answer? May I also ask him when this exhibition will take place?

The Prime Minister: The exhibition will be ready in 10 days or a fortnight. The Tiger and the Panther could be shown. There is only one Royal Tiger at present in the country and it has been damaged. In various respects it is not complete. It is doubtful whether it can be made a showpiece. The following British and American tanks could be shown: Sherman; Sherman 17-pounder; Churchill A.22; Cromwell A.27; Comte; A Centurion A.41 could also be shown. It is on the secret list, but it is not likely to be used in the immediate future. I have asked the War Office to make special efforts to exhibit the Royal Tiger.

EUROPEAN RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION

Commander King-Hall: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will endeavour to establish an Allied Committee composed of Ministers of Cabinet rank empowered to co-ordinate the activities of the various organisations, national and international, concerned with relief measures in Europe.

The Prime Minister: The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration is already charged, under the terms of the Agreement signed at Washington on 9th November, 1943, by all the United Nations, with the duty of co-ordinating relief measures, though its power to do so is of course subject to the consent of the member Governments concerned. The Council which controls the policy of this international body consists of representatives of the United Nations, most of whom are of rank corresponding to that of Cabinet Ministers. It is the Committee of the Council for Europe which meets in London which is specially concerned with relief measures in Europe. The administration maintains close touch with the Allied military authorities and endeavours to combine its relief measures with theirs. No useful purpose would appear to be served by attempting to set up another Allied Committee for the same purpose.

Commander King-Hall: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that something more

cannot, in fact, be done to prevent some of the overlapping which is taking place (between U.N.R.R.A. relief teams, the Red Cross and other organisations working with the Allied military commands?

The Prime Minister: I am doubtful whether prevention of the overlapping would be facilitated by the construction of such a committee as my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested.

Viscountess Astor: Is this committee taking charge of the hundreds of Polish women who are now suffering untold hardships in Germany, and are really in a very parlous condition?

The Prime Minister: What does the Noble Lady mean by "this committee"? I read out the names of several committees which are already exerting themselves, and there is also the one proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend, which I have advised should not be set up. I cannot conceive any reason why they should exclude the task of aiding the victims of misfortune such as the Noble Lady has mentioned from the purview of their activities, but I am quite willing to find out whether they have neglected it, and if so, why.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Prime Minister what British Departments are concerned in different aspects of European relief and reconstruction; what are the arrangements for co-ordinating their action; what are the combined organisations, including representatives of His Majesty's Government and other governments, similarly concerned; and what are the arrangements for ensuring co-ordination between them.

The Prime Minister: The principal responsibility in these matters lies with the Foreign Office, the War Office and the Ministry of Production. Their action and that of other Departments concerned is co-ordinated in the normal way, by means of Cabinet Committees and otherwise. The combined organisations include the Combined Boards, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the Provisional Executive for European Inland Transport, the United Nations Maritime Authority, the European Coal Organisation and the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe. The Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, which held its first meeting on


28th May, will also, where appropriate, concert the action of specialist organisations in the European field.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hitherto we have had answers from five different Ministers, including those of Transport and Food? Could we now put all Questions down to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that on the spur of the moment, but it is obvious that when you are dealing with the affairs of a Continent, there will be various aspects under which these affairs must be treated.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that these very important matters are being more and more co-ordinated, will my right hon. Friend give favourable consideration to the suggestion that we should be able to address Questions on matters of principle to one Minister?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Arising out of the Prime Minister's last two answers, may I ask whether the Chancellor of the Duchy will be in charge of matters affecting U.N.R.R.A.?

The Prime Minister: He will not be in charge of them, but he will be concerned with them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Duchy to the great importance of supporting the work of U.N.R.R.A. in respect of displaced persons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think this interchange in the House will probably have the desired effect.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the interest taken by hon. Members on all sides, would the Prime Minister consider issuing a White Paper to explain, when they are sufficiently clear, the number of bodies which are dealing with different aspects of this problem in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I see no reason why that should not be done, but I would rather not name an exact date when it will be done.

MINISTERS (DUTIES)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Prime Minister whether he will define the duties to be entrusted to the Minister of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Both my right hon. Friends will assist the Foreign Secretary. The Minister of State will assist him in the general conduct of foreign policy and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on matters affecting European reconstruction, especially on the economic side. In particular the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be the United Kingdom representative on, and for the time being Chairman of, the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe.

WAR CASUALTIES (STATISTICS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister the number of officers and men killed in Europe in the three Services, respectively, since the invasion of Europe was decided on at the first Quebec Conference; and the number killed or presumed killed in Bomber Command during the same period.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to postpone his Question until next week when I hope to be in a position to give him an answer. I trust, however, that my hon. Friend is aware of the labour involved for hardworking Departments in making these special analyses.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

County War Executive Committees (Cost)

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total cost of the war agricultural executive committees, including their staffs, rents, etc., in England and Wales far the year 1944.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am afraid that final figures for the financial year 1944 are not yet available. They will be published in due course in the Civil Appropriation Accounts. In the meantime, my hon. Friend will find the figures for 1943 in Class X of the Civil Appropriation Accounts for that year.

Sir W. Wayland: As the splendid work of these committees, which has been mainly concerned with the ploughing up of grassland, is practically finished, is it not time something was done to economise their expenditure by the closing down of redundant departments?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, but my hon. Friend will no doubt realise from his knowledge of agriculture that many of these accounts cannot be closed for a long time. They generally include such accounts as tenant right and live and dead stock on hand, and more important still, betterment claims for individual farms.

Sir G. Owen: Will the Minister now be able to give the figures for separate war agricultural committees?

Mr. Hudson: Not for some time.

Milk Recording (Compulsion)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in order to obtain reliable statistics for breeders of dairy cattle, he will institute a scheme of compulsory milk recording.

Mr. Hudson: Under present conditions I am afraid it would not be practicable to institute a compulsory scheme.

Lady Apsley: Will the Minister appreciate how very necessary this is in the interests of milk production, and how important it is for milk producers?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, but I am sure the Noble Lady will appreciate that great progress has been made. Shortage of labour is the limiting factor in extending what she and I would like to see done.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is the Minister aware that since the Milk Marketing Board took over the administration from the milk recording societies, there has been a considerable reduction in milk recording herds, while at the same time a considerable increase has been shown in the Milk Marketing Board's accounts for milk recording? Will my right hon. Friend look into the whole matter?

Veterinary Surgeons

Professor Gruffydd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the number of veterinary surgeons employed by his Department in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

Mr. Hudson: As the answer contains a number of figures I will circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

At present 260 whole-time veterinary officers of the Ministry of Agriculture are stationed in England, 55 in Scotland and 44 in Wales; but individual officers are moved as conditions require. In addition, there are 847 veterinary surgeons in private practice who serve as part-time officers of my Department, and of these 596 are in England, 175 in Scotland and 76 in Wales. My responsibilities in matters of animal health do not extend to Northern Ireland.

FISHING INDUSTRY (BOATS AND PERSONNEL)

Captain Bullock: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the fishing fleet of Great Britain will be restored to its pre war strength both in boats and personnel.

Mr. Hudson: I hope as soon as possible.

RIVER HULL ESTUARY

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will instruct the River Hull Catchment Board to clear at once, the channel of debris at its mouth as this is causing silting and possible flooding in the Holderness area; and if he is aware that there is need for dredging and immediate repair of the lower banks of the river.

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware that any debris at the mouth of the River Hull is causing silting or possible flooding in the Holderness area, or that there is any need for such works as are suggested in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Muff: Will the right hon. Gentleman send one of his own officers to see the mouth of the river for himself, and he will then find that it is in a deplorable state?

Mr. Hudson: I have had special inquiry made as a result of this Question, and everyone concerned is mystified at what induced my hon. Friend to put it down.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the Minister aware that no such complaints have reached the hon. Member for Holderness?

Mr. Muff: Did the Minister receive his report from Beverley, or from one of his own officers?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Turton:

55. To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make an announcement of the Government's long-term policy for agriculture.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. Is there no answer to Question 55?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member who put down Question 55 desired it to be postponed.

Mr. Brown: Does not the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) realise that he has denied the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity of giving us something more than a monosyllabic reply?

Mr. Turton: Is it not in Order for an hon. Member to postpone his Question, and thereby delay the delight of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown); and may I inform him that I am attempting to postpone his delight until Tuesday next?

PREMISES, SOUTHEND (HOLIDAY HOME)

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the Rev. E. A. Hatrison, chaplain to the Whipps Cross Hospital and of the Central Homes, Leytonstone, had agreed with the owner to purchase No. 14, St. Vincent's Road, Southend, for use as a holiday home for aged poor persons, but that owing to objection by certain residents in the road being lodged, with the Southend Corporation the purchase is being held up; that this action of the residents is widely resented; and if he will take steps to secure for the aged poor of East London an opportunity for rest and change by the purchase of these premises.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware that objections have been raised to the proposal to use these premises as a holiday home for aged persons. A formal

appeal has been made to me against the refusal of the Southend-on-Sea County Borough Council to grant permission for this use of the premises, and I am accordingly instructing one of my Inspectors to hold a local inquiry. On the receipt of his report, I will give full consideration to all the representations made.

Mr. McEntee: Is the Minister aware of the very widespread indignation in the district? Will he take a poll of the people in the immediate area? He would find that only nine people are objecting.

Mr. Morrison: It is my statutory duty to consider both sides, but I will give due consideration to all the representations that are made.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that not only in Southend, but in Leyton, Leytonstone and Walthamstow, this matter has aroused considerable feeling?

ROEHAMPTON HOSPITAL (RADIO HEADPHONES)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Pensions whether for the general convenience of the patients, and particularly those who have just come out of operations, he will arrange to have headphones installed over each bed at the Roehampton Hospital in the place of the present loud-speaker in each ward, which is working practically all day.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Captain Sidney): All beds in Roehampton Hospital are equipped for headphones, but at present a number of these instruments are under repair or awaiting repair. My right hon. Friend is making every effort to remedy this position. In the meantime, a complete headphone service is maintained in the wards set aside for very sick cases, and it is only in other wards, which are temporarily deficient in working headphones, that independent wireless sets are in use.

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Major Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is yet in a position to state when the hearing will be resumed of the case of Private R. W. Bryan, 14, Lancaster Road, Stamford, which was adjourned at Nottingham on 29th November, 1944.

Captain Sidney: The case has been referred back to the tribunal, and I hope the date of resumption will soon be fixed.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Could my hon. and gallant Friend give an indication when the tribunal will sit? The case has now been hanging fire for six months.

Captain Sidney: The actual fixing of the date for the sitting of the tribunal is the responsibility of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but it is hoped that it will be at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Malaria (Quinine Supplies)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the mortality rates for malaria in India during the past 10 years; to what extent this is attributable to the shortage of quinine; and what percentage of the 244,000 lb. of quinine in stock in April was available for civilian consumption.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): It is not possible to give reliable figures of deaths in India specifically attributable to malaria, nor to estimate to what extent they might have been reduced by greater use of quinine. The supply of quinine until the Japanese occupation of Java was, broadly, equal to the demand, and supplies of synthetic substitutes have for some time been reaching India in substantial quantities. Of the 244,000 lbs. of quinine in stock in April, 1944, 200,000 lbs. was available for civilian consumption.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to take it that a certain number of deaths have been attributable to the lack of quinine?

Mr. Amery: I am not aware of that fact.

Viscount Wavell (Conversations)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Wavell is likely to return to India in the near future; whether any conclusions have been reached in conversations with him respecting political and economic developments in India; and whether he can now make a general statement on the matter and the question of releasing political prisoners.

Mr. Amery: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) on 29th May.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is great anxiety about this matter, in this House as well as outside? Cannot we have some indication at some time as to the nature of the conversations with Lord Wavell, and whether any progress was made towards economic and political developments in India?

Mr. Amery: I am sure some indication will be given at an early date.

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any statement before the Dissolution?

Mr. Amery: May I leave that to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Sorensen: Is it intended to have a discussion on this matter before the House finishes?

Mr. Amery: Yes, I understand that, if there is a statement, there will be some opportunity for Debate.

Mr. A. Bevan: Are we to understand that the Leader of the House must give permission to the right hon. Gentleman before he can make a statement on policy? Surely, this is not a matter which involves legislation, and it is entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman whether he makes a statement or not?

Mr. Amery: I naturally left the announcement of Business to the Leader of the House, but I understand that there will be an opportunity.

Mr. Attlee: I was not asking about an opportunity for a Debate, which, of course, will be a matter for the Leader of the House, but whether the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, was going to make a statement?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir; but I rather assumed that the two things went together.

BASEMENT AIR RAID SHELTERS, LONDON

Mr. Doland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give instructions to the London local authorities to de-requisition the basements of shops formerly used as basement air raid shelters.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): It is intended that these basements should be de-requisitioned as speedily as possible and guidance on the subject will shortly be given to local authorities. I ought to add that there are difficulties owing to the shortage of labour, in cases where there are valuable fittings and equipment which ought to be removed.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give instructions to the local authorities to have it done at the earliest possible moment, so as to make the accommodation available for housing?

Sir D. Somervell: I fully appreciate the importance of this, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will also appreciate the difficulties owing to the shortage of labour and the very urgent demand for materials.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Surely, it is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to arrange for homeless Londoners to live in basements?

Mr. Doland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give instructions to the London local authorities to remove the concrete and brick structures adjoining shops and leading to air-raid shelters in the basement.

Sir D. Somervell: London local authorities were informed on the 5th May that these and other types of traffic obstruction might be removed, so far as labour could be spared for the purpose without impinging upon work of greater urgency and importance. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the relevant circular.

EIRE (TRAVEL PERMITS)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the many inquiries about travelling permits to Eire; and if he is now in a position to announce any modification of these restrictions.

Sir D. Somervell: Yes, Sir; but as an explanatory statement of the new arrangements is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

From 11th June, any British subject normally resident in the United Kingdom will be at liberty to travel freely between Great Britain and Eire in the same way as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He will, however, have to produce at the port in Great Britain the identity document known as a Travel Permit Card issued either by the Passport and Permit Office in Great Britain or the Northern Ireland Permit Office in Belfast. The general conditions of travel will be the same as for travel to Northern Ireland, which my predecessor described in his reply to the hon. Member for County Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) on 17th May.

It has also been decided to permit on and after 11th June the departure of citizens of Eire from this country for any part of Ireland on production of a travel permit card issued by the Eire authorities. Any such person who wishes to return to Great Britain after a temporary visit to Ireland of not more than one month will be able to obtain exemption at the port of departure from the requirement of a visa for the return journey if he satisfies the Immigration Officer that he is ordinarily resident in Great Britain or will be returning to resume approved employment, e.g., by producing a leave certificate from his employer authenticated by the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

It must be realised that there is still a considerable shortage of suitable shipping and it will be some time before normal facilities can be provided. Meanwhile, the issue of sailing tickets is necessary to ensure that the numbers travelling to the ports to embark do not exceed the capacity of the ships.

It is necessary for the present to retain the visa system for persons resident in Eire who seek to come to this country but certain modifications are being considered to facilitate travel by persons who have permanent connections with both sides of the Irish Channel.

RE-ENGAGED POLICE PENSIONERS

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the appeal on behalf of re-engaged police pensioners made to him on 16th February last; and whether any reply has yet been made.

Sir D. Somervell: I am considering the representations on behalf of the First Police Reserve which have been made by the Police Federation and hope to be in a position to make recommendations on this subject to police authorities at an early date.

Mr. Brown: Does not the Home Secretary recognise the necessity of replying to representations from any section of the police in a very much shorter period of time than has elapsed from the date when these representations were submitted to the present time?

Sir D. Somervell: So far as I am personally concerned, I have only had since Monday, but I will ceratinly see that the matter is considered.

Mr. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman see that he improves on the record of his predecessor?

Sir D. Somervell: I will do my best to do so in that, and, indeed, all other respects.

PLUMBERS (RELEASE FROM N.F.S.)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the shortage of skilled plumbers required for reconstruction work and bomb-damage repairs, he will now release men in this trade who are serving in the N.F.S.

Sir D. Somervell: I hope it will be possible shortly to make available for other employment a substantial proportion of the plumbers at present serving in the National Fire Service.

Mr. Taylor: While I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, can he say what he means by "shortly," because this repair work is being held up purely through a shortage of plumbers?

Sir D. Somervell: No, Sir; I cannot say precisely what is meant by "shortly," but we will get on with it as quickly as we can.

HUDDERSFIELD POLICE FORCE (INQUIRY)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that as a result of information communicated to his Department by Ser-

geant McCourtie of the Huddersfield police force, and of the Home Office inquiry that followed, the chief constable was reprimanded and an inspector asked to resign, that disciplinary action has been taken against Sergeant McCourtie for making this communication to his Department and that he has been dismissed from the force; and what steps he proposes to take to protect from victimisation persons who bring to his notice irregularities in police administration.

Sir D. Somervell: I cannot accept the implication that there has been any victimisation in this case. When certain members of the Huddersfield borough police force brought to the notice of the Home Office allegations reflecting on senior officers of the force, it was made quite clear to them that they would have nothing to fear from giving in a spirit of public duty information which they believed to be well founded, but that they would have no immunity from disciplinary proceedings should the allegations be made negligently, wantonly or maliciously in breach of the police discipline code. The information relating to the conduct of individual members of the force which came to light in the course of the tribunal's inquiry was brought to the notice of the watch committee, as disciplinary authority for the force, but that committee was in no way bound by any views expressed by the tribunal. The sergeant referred to was dismissed from the force by the disciplinary authority, not for making a communication to the Home Office, but for insubordinate conduct in that he was found by the disciplinary authority to have wilfully or negligently made false complaints against other members of the force.

Mr. Lawson: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, if policemen, who do bring to the notice of higher authority matters which are found sufficiently well founded to lead to disciplinary action against senior officers, are then dismissed, that is going to lead to bad administration, because nobody will come forward with any complaints, however well founded?

Sir D. Somervell: I quite agree with that, but, on the information I have, this case did not in any way impinge on the principle that people who come forward and give honest evidence to the best of their belief, should not be victimised.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it reasonable to suppose that a member of the police force would bring a mischievous, wanton or unsubstantial charge against any members of the force, knowing that it would be investigated by a tribunal and that, therefore, its falsity would be exposed? Is it not obvious in this case that a man has been victimised and that it will have a bad effect on the police force generally if constables are treated in this way?

Sir D. Somervell: I cannot accept that for a moment. People sometimes do things, although they are afterwards found out. In this case, the disciplinary authorities—and I have no reason to impugn their decision—came to a decision that these complaints had been made in the way I have suggested.

Mr. Bevan: Surely, the point is that the man who brought the charge knew beforehand that they would be investigated? Is it reasonable to assume that he did so knowing that they were not substantial?

Sir D. Somervell: It would not be reasonable to assume that, but the disciplinary authority, after investigating all the facts, came to that conclusion.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the point in this case that the man who lodged the original complaint was sufficiently supported by the tribunal which investigated it to lead to the dismissal of the Chief Constable; and if, in the end, the man who lodged the complaint, which was found to be a true complaint, is dismissed, inevitably, other members of the Force will suppose that he was dismissed for making the complaint, and that that will be contrary to public policy?

Sir D. Somervell: Obviously, we cannot discuss the details of this case, but I think it is right to point out that it was not the only decision reached. His statement was one of a number forwarded by the constable's branch, but it is the only case in which the Committee came to the conclusion I have stated.

CAPITAL ISSUES (CONTROL)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir Hugh O'Neill:

97. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statements to make about his future policies in

regard to the control of capital issues and the related market controls and in regard to bank advances.

At the end of Questions—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I should like to make a short statement regarding the Capital Issues Committee, in reply to Question 97.
It will now be necessary to take account not only of the needs of those who require to raise capital in connection with the war in the Far East, but also of the large number of industrial and other borrowers who will require to borrow to finance reconstruction and development. To meet this changed situation, and to ensure that the policy governing the general control of capital issues conforms to the wider policies of the Government from time to time, it is necessary to issue revised instructions to the Capital Issues Committee. In order that the principles which will govern the grant of Treasury consent to new issues may be known as widely as possible, I have arranged that the Memorandum of Guidance to the Committee shall be published as a White Paper. It will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. I would now only add that the present exemption in favour of cases where the amount to be borrowed does not exceed £10,000 in twelve months is being raised to £50,000 as from tomorrow.
As regards the market controls, I have decided that the ordinary market machinery shall be allowed to function again in respect of permitted issues: the restriction of issues to private placing or to offers to existing shareholders will accordingly lapse. The Treasury's control over permission to deal and the arrangement by which transactions in unquoted securities are submitted for Treasury approval will also cease.
As regards bank advances, the banks have during the war co-operated in our general financial policy by restricting advances to purposes which would assist the war effort or were otherwise designed to meet national needs. For the future and with a view to assisting essential civil production, I have now asked the banks to continue this co-operation in order that their policy in regard to advances may conform to the general policy of the Government. To that end I have asked that unduly large advances should not be


made for personal needs; that no facilities should be given for the speculative buying or holding either of securities or stocks of commodities; and that generally the banks should be guided by the same principles as will apply to the grant of Treasury consent to new issues, special consideration being given in particular to advances for any form of export business.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions with regard to that statement. The first question, which perhaps should be addressed to the Leader of the House, is—I am aware that the time at our disposal between now and the Dissolution is exceedingly short—Will there be any opportunity for the House to discuss the proposal? The second question is one that I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will remember that in the Debate on the setting up of the two Finance Corporations he told us it would be unnecessary for those corporations to exercise any consideration other than financial, because the Capital Issues Committee decided on the question of the merits. As I understand the present proposal, there is to be no censorship on behalf of the Capital Issues Committee, up to £50,000, and, therefore, it would appear that, as far as the smaller amounts up to £50,000—which are the main subjects of the smaller Financial Corporation—are concerned, the issue will be decided solely on financial grounds and not on national grounds. Is that the case?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been an overriding exemption up to £10,000 in one year for issues by existing companies. All I have said is that that limit, which has been criticised, will be raised to £50,000. But I should like to make it clear that the working of the new arrangements will be kept under continuous review, and nothing I have said detracts from what I said on the previous occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that we should rely on the control of capital issues rather than on the detailed working of the new Corporations to ensure that the national interest is fully safeguarded in those matters.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does that not mean that up to £50,000, a company whose objects are quite worthless from the national point of view can borrow

money from one of these Corporations, when much more worthy objects are being ruled out by the shortage of money?

Sir J. Anderson: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the White Paper, he will see that worthy objects of all kinds, objects which are good in the national interest, are provided for in the new arrangement of the national control.

Sir Irving Albery: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he cannot say that the Bank of England, the banks and all the principal financial institutions in this country have given the most loyal co-operation to the Government?

Mr. Graham White: Is it clear that the conditions which have hitherto prevailed for the purpose of reconverting other loans remain unchanged?

Sir J. Anderson: I would ask my hon. Friend to study the White Paper.

Mr. A. Bevan: If no principle of priority is to be exercised over the raising of money up to £50,000, how will it be possible for the Government to direct labour and materials into those channels must useful to the community in the next few months or few years; and is this not creating a financial jungle once more for the bigger beasts of prey to try to get whatever results they can?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that what the hon. Member has been criticising is exactly the opposite—the liberty that is being allowed for the smaller people.

Mr. Bevan: Fifty thousand pounds?

Sir G. Mander: Can the Chancellor give an assurance that these changes will be properly related to the Government's policy of full employment?

Sir J. Anderson: It is all part of that policy.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this cessation of control comes into force immediately, and if it does, will he say what was the urgency that made that necessary, without waiting for the opinion of this House or of the country to be expressed?

Sir J. Anderson: This is an adjustment in the arrangements for the exercise of the control. It is not being abolished; it is merely being relaxed in order to meet the new conditions of the development period.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the Leader of the House answer the point that I put about giving time to the House to discuss the matter?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I would like to consider how most usefully we can do that. There are certain Supply days, and perhaps we can discuss the actual arrangement through the usual channels.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for next week?

Mr. Eden: The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 4th June—2nd Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Concluding stages of the Income Tax Bill, the Distribution of Industry Bill, the Education (Scotland) Bill, and the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.] We hope that it will be agreeable to conclude the Scottish Education Bill on this day.
Tuesday, 5th June—Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Committee and remaining stages of the Government of Burma Bill.2nd Reading of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill. Committee and remaining stages of the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Bill.
Wednesday, 6th June—We shall ask the House to agree to a Motion to obtain the outstanding Supply Votes in a reduced number of allotted days. It is proposed to allot a further three days for the completion of the Business of Supply. 3rd Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Committee and remaining stages of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill. Committee stage of a Supplementary Estimate relating to Civil Aviation.
Thursday, 7th June—Supply (6th Allotted Day); Committee. A Debate will take place on Housing.
Friday, 8th June—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure and of the Supplementary Estimate for Civil Aviation if that has not been previously obtained.
The House will understand that the Bills which we propose to take this week have yet to be considered in another place, and if they are to pass, it is desirable that they

should leave this House as early as possible. The statement I have made includes Bills which the Government consider to be essential and others which, I think, the House as a whole thinks it is desirable to pass, and in regard to which there is a general measure of agreement. The House will realise that the Business can only be obtained by the co-operation of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, and any Business which it is not possible to complete on the days mentioned, will be taken on succeeding days.

Mr. Attlee: I would like to give notice that on Friday on the Supplementary Vote of Credit, we shall propose to raise the conditions and welfare of Servicemen overseas. I would now like to ask the Leader of the House whether a statement is to be made with regard to the polling day question.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is just about to make it.

Mr. Attlee: May I also ask whether there is any progress to be reported with regard to the Family Allowances Bill?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Discussions, as I think my right hon. Friend knows, are still proceeding on that matter and I have nothing definite to say, but I hope to have something definite very soon.

Mr. Dalton: I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared—I am sure he will be—to suspend the Rule on Monday with a view to getting certain Measures.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; that was in our minds.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks he is going to get the other Business on Wednesday, as well as the Motion on Supply days? Is it not clear that the Motion on Supply days will lead to a very general Debate, which will review the whole of the reasons why this extraordinary Motion is to be moved at all? Is it not possible to bring the Family Allowances Bill immediately before the House, because there is general agreement in all parts of the House concerning this Bill, if the Treasury will drop their resistance to the universal desire of the House to have Clauses 13 and 14 amended in accordance with our wishes?

Mr. Eden: While I have every respect for the hon. Member's interpretation of


"general agreement," I know he will accept it when I say that his view is not necessarily and always the universal view, though always a very important one. The two Clauses concerned, 13 and 14, are still under discussion, and I have hopes that some arrangement may be arrived at, but I would not want to debate that now. As regards the point about Wednesday's Business, I can only tell him that hope springs eternal in the breast of the Leader of the House, but what will happen when the Resolution is brought forward I cannot tell. One of the reasons why we have allotted four Supply days is that I felt it was the wish of the House that we should get through all the legislation we could upon which there was a wide measure of agreement before the House rose.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman confusing hope with credulity in this case?

Mr. Eden: We shall be able to tell that on Wednesday.

GENERAL ELECTION (POLLING DATE)

The Prime Minister: In order to meet the problem arising from local mass holidays which will be in progress on 5th July, the Government are prepared to consider legislation under which in constituencies to be specified in the Bill polling day would be postponed to 12th July, In order to legislate on these lines there must be general agreement. We already have a good deal of information, and I am circulating this evening a list of constituencies which has so far been drawn up. The Home and Scottish Offices will be glad to receive further information from hon. Members and from the town clerks of other towns similarly affected in order to draw up the schedule of constituencies.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Has it been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that in some constituencies like mine, in which there are five townships, there are three separate wakes holidays?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that is one of those points which it is beyond the wit of man to remedy.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the Prime Minister aware that people who go away for a holi-

day commence the week on a Saturday, and that Thursday, in the middle of the week, is therefore very inconvenient as an alternative day? Will he reconsider that point?

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in a number of constituencies there is more than one local authority, and that in the different local authority areas the traditional holiday week is not the same, and that it will be perfectly easy to meet that position by giving the returning officer a discretion not merely to postpone the polling day in all those local government areas but to postpone it only in those of them that are affected? There is not any difficulty at all about doing that.

The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, the idea is a very simple one. Take the Lancashire case. If you look at those who have their wakes in the week which includes 5th July, they can have their wakes and fake their poll in the following week—that is perfectly simple—and there are some others who can be dealt with in the same way. I should think that round about 20 constituencies might be affected. We have not got the list absolutely perfect. I am putting out some of the most clearly marked cases in a note this evening. I do not think there is a better day for voting than Thursday; it is more convenient for everybody and I do not propose to alter these dates. If we try to complicate the matter too much and provide for everything, then undoubtedly we shall not be able to do anything, because it can only be by general agreement that a Measure like this can get through.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this point will be looked into? In Lancashire there are constituencies which include a number of boroughs or urban districts which take their wakes week at separate times. Will there be provision for one part of the constituency to vote on the first day and the other part on the second day, not only provision for postponing voting in the whole of the constituency till the next week, because otherwise it will be very difficult for a large number of Lancashire people?

The Prime Minister: Nelson and Colne is a difficult case, I know, and there may be some very hard cases which are left over and which it may not be possible to deal with satisfactorily. We shall have to fall


back on the maxim that hard cases do not make good law, but, none the less, the Home Secretary is looking into this matter, and if it is humanly possible to meet the difficulty it will be met.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the annual race week holiday on Tyneside has been staggered firm by firm, and will he kindly see whether that position can be met? That arrangement was made in order to keep the people working on war production.

The Prime Minister: That illustrates very well the point I was making.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point which has been put about Nelson and Colne and Lancashire constituencies is fairly common in mining areas too—that there is a staggering of holidays so that one section of the division is away on holiday while the others are not? Will the Home Secretary take note of that fact?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend says he will take note of it, but whether he will be able to produce a satisfactory solution is another matter.

Sir Cyril Entwistle: May I ask whether the alteration of the date to 12th July will affect the dates for nomination and for the announcement of the poll?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not at all. The constituencies where polling is postponed to the week ending 12th July will have the advantages of a longer contest, greater opportunities and, no doubt, outside help from all sides from those Members who will have already passed through their ordeal.

Mr. Loverseed: In view of the fact that 19 days are to elapse between polling day and the declaration of the results, during which time the ballot boxes will be open for the Forces' vote to come in, will it not be possible for a ballot box to be kept open in each local government area for people returning from holidays to vote?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is under an illusion, and a delusion, if he thinks that the ballot boxes remain open. On the contrary, they are hermetically sealed and closely guarded, and the idea of a returning officer and all the apparatus of an election sitting waiting on week after week for stray voters is one for which I could not really hold out any hope.

Mr. Gallacher: Much has been said about wakes weeks, but is the Prime Minister aware that in Scotland, which is always neglected, we have as holidays either 10 days or two weeks, and in view of the fact that there are three weeks intervening between polling day and the return of the soldiers' votes, would it not be much better if there were a fortnight in between the two polling days?

Captain Prescott: If certain constituencies do not appear in the list to be published are the Government prepared to receive representations, before the Bill is introduced, on why other constituencies should be included?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, within reasonable proportions, but I must remind would-be applicants that it may become rather tedious maintaining the election for an additional seven days after the others have finished.

Mr. Bowles: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication, even approximately, of what percentage of holiday makers will qualify in the constituencies?

The Prime Minister: I should think our proposal would remedy the bulk of the evil. Of course Dissolutions have sometimes struck difficult moments and that is a fact which has to be faced. If we had waited much longer we should have run into the harvest, and so forth.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Is not my right hon. Friend persuaded by the number of questions which have been put to him that the only possible thing to do is to make two definite dates and not to extend this thing, or otherwise it will become unworkable?

Mr. Hugh Lawson: Would not the simple way of solving the problem be to reopen the absent voters' list, so that people going away could vote?

Mr. Silverman: I appreciate that nobody desires to make this matter more complicated than it is, and that if the returning officer had a fettered discretion instead of an unfettered discretion that would only make it more, complicated. What I am suggesting is that in areas such as I have referred to the returning officer's discretion should be sufficiently unlimited to enable him to postpone the polling date only in that part of the constituency where


it was necessary and not in the constituency as a whole—that is in constituencies which comprise several local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be possible to do that. It is not so "perfectly easy"—as some Member has just remarked—when you come to deal with it. I thought it was perfectly easy yesterday, but when I sat up last night and talked with the Home Secretary I saw there were a great many difficulties. In order that there should be no misunderstanding I want to say that our proposal does not throw the burden on the returning officer but throws the burden on this House, which specifically states the constituencies in which the date may be altered.

Following is the list of places with mass holidays clashing with 5th July, showing constituencies:

Places.
Constituencies.


England



Carlisle
Carlisle P.B.


Bolton
Bolton P.B.


Farnworth
Farnworth Division


Nelson
Nelson and Colne P.B.


Barrowford


Turton
Darwen Division


Westhoughton
Westhoughton Division


Barrow-in-Furness
Barrow - in -Furness P.B.


Ulverston
Lonsdale Division


Dalton


Crewe
Crewe Division


Scotland



Edinburgh (including Leith)
Edinburgh—Central, North, East, South, West


Leith


Midlothian and Peebles—Northern


Greenock
Greenock


Falkirk
Stirling and Falkirk District of Burghs.


Port Glasgow
Renfrew—Western


Gourock


Bonnyrigg and Laswade
Midlothian and Peebles—Northern, Peebles and Southern


Loanhead


Dalkeith


Cockenzie
Berwick and Haddington


East Linton


Haddington


North Berwick


Prestonpans


Tranent


The Camelon, Stenhousemuir and Larbert Districts of the County of Stirling
Stirling and Clackmannan—Clackmannan and Eastern

SYRIA AND LEBANON (BRITISH INTERVENTION)

Mr. Eden: I had to inform the House last night of a very serious situation which has developed in Syria, where there is fighting between Syrians and French troops, and I promised to keep the House fully informed, as early as I could, of any decision His Majesty's Government might take. The situation has deteriorated still further since last night. Our Minister in Damascus reports that there were heavy firing and shelling during the night, and that two great fires were burning in the centre of the city, about one mile apart but spreading. All telephone communication has been cut between Damascus and the sea coast and we are only in touch with His Majesty's Minister by wireless. An armistice was arranged with the French military authorities yesterday afternoon and British and United States civilian colonies were evacuated from Damascus. After that the centre of the city was subjected to the heaviest and most concentrated shell fire yet directed upon it. It was also bombed from the air. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The Governor of Hama has appealed to the Ninth Army to arrange an armistice in order that the many dead and wounded may be evacuated.
The fighting has spread to other parts of Syria, notably Jebel Druse, where French officers have been taken prisoner. The President and the Government of Syria have sent an urgent appeal to His Majesty's Government reminding us that we have endorsed the promise of independence and that we have also said that the treaty negotiations with France should be conducted freely and not under duress. The greatest concern has been caused throughout the Middle East and serious fears are entertained for the state of tranquillity which is so necessary in that area if a vital line of communication to the Far East is not to be disturbed. Every possible effort has been made to enjoin calm on both sides and I do not think that a further appeal in this sense would have any effect. In all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that they cannot any longer stand aside, and the Prime Minister has accordingly to-day sent the following message to General de Gaulle:
In view of the grave situation which has arisen between your troops and the Levant


States, and the severe fighting which has broken out, we have, with profound regret, ordered the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, to intervene to prevent the further effusion of blood in the interests of the security of the whole Middle East which involves communications for the war against Japan.
In order to avoid collision between British and French Forces, we request you immediately to order the French troops to cease fire and to withdraw to their barracks. Once firing has ceased and order has been restored, we shall be prepared to begin tripartite discussions here in London.'
I feel sure that the House will agree with me in deploring these events, and will share my hope that once order has been restored we shall be abe to resume the diplomatic initiative which I mentioned last night, and to arrange a peaceful settlement which will be satisfactory to the parties concerned. We also have in mind, of course, arrangements by which the Syrian and Lebanese Governments will be associated with. these discussions. We are. in closest touch with all the Governments concerned, including the United States Government, but I would not wish to say more about the diplomatic arrangements which we contemplate at this stage. I feel sure the House will also share my hope that nothing shall be said at this stage which would make that diplomatic initiative more difficult.

Mr. Attlee: I am sure everybody will agree in deploring these events and the bloodshed between our Allies, and, under those circumstances, we have no option, with our responsibilities, but to endeavour to restore order. We all hope that negotiations may be resumed, and I would ask the Foreign Secretary—I am sure he will agree—that if we can get this settled, the sooner we can get both the French troops and our own out of Syria the better.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I am in entire agreement with everything that he has said. Our desire throughout has been to get a settlement of this troublesome business, and I think it is abundantly clear to all—and I am glad he has underlined it—that we desire to withdraw our troops the moment a settlement can be reached.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like, if I have any influence, to use it to get the French

Government—the strong Government in this situation—to ease off. It is a terrible thing that there should have been such a situation, and I hope the effort to get the French Government to ease off and to allow negotiations to take place will succeed, but I would like above everything else to impress on the Leader of the House, arising out of the letter sent by the Prime Minister—which I hope will have a good effect—that we must, at all costs, avoid a further extension of the conflict in the form of the British Forces coming into conflict with the French Forces. That would be very terrible.

Mr. Eden: I think the House, which has watched the events for some weeks, and especially in the last few days, will understand how immensely anxious we have been to avoid this very situation. We have not acted until our over-all responsibility was so serious that we simply had to act, or stand by and see a situation develop which would have shamed us all. I need not tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no one more anxious than I am to see that this matter does not result in any serious injury to Anglo-French relations and, if our French Friends will do as we have asked and asked them repeatedly to do, to resolve these difficult issues, they will be welcomed in London and we shall do our utmost to make those conversations a success.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to assimilate the procedure in all cases of treason, and misprision of treason to the procedure in cases of murder."—[Treason Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled "An Act to constitute a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the County Council of the Administrative County of Devon and the Rural District Councils of Barnstaple, Bideford, Broadwoodwidger, Crediton, Holsworthy, Okehampton, Saint Thomas, South Molton, Tavistock and Torrington and the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Barnstaple; to vest in the said Board the water undertakings of certain constituent authorities and the undertaking of the Barnstaple Water Company; to authorise the Board to execute works and to supply water; and for other purposes."—[North Devon Water Board Bill [Lords].

TREASON BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A)

Major NEVEN-SPENCE reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills: That for the convenience of Parries the Committee had adjourned till Monday next at Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B)

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That for the convenience of Parties the Committee had adjourned till Monday next at Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)

3.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move,
That the Draft of an Order in Council entitled the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats)Order, 1945, a copy of which was presented on 17th May, be approved.
This draft Order in Council, as the House knows, has its origin in Section 2 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act of 1944. The problem with which that Section dealt was the problem of abnormally large constituencies with electorates which in 1939 varied from 100,000 electors to over 200,000 electors. There were 20 such constituencies which were scheduled in the Act, and a Boundaries Commission was set up to recommend their division into constituencies of approximately 50,000 voters. The Commission was to be under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. The Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Sir Sylvanus Vivian, and the Director-General of Ordnance Survey, Major-General Cheetham, were to be members. In addition there were to be two other members, one to be appointed by the Secretary of State and one by the Minister of Health. Mr. Roland Burrows, K.C., was appointed by my predecessor in office, and he was nominated Deputy-Chairman by Mr. Speaker. Sir Harry Pritchard, who has had a long association with the work of municipal corporations, was appointed by the Minister of Health. I am sure that the House would wish me, in the first instance, to express on behalf of all of us our gratitude to Mr. Speaker, for undertaking the Chairmanship, to Mr. Roland Burrows, the Deputy-Chairman, and to all the members of the Commission.
Under the Act there are to be 25 new one-Member constituencies, and I would like at this stage to refer to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Act of 1944, under which the Commission was given a discretion, where part of a local government area was in an abnormally large constituency and part in another constituency not abnormally large, to adjust the boundary one way or the other so that the new constituency boundary coincided with the local government boundary.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) who moved the insertion of this useful Sub-section during the passage of the Bill through the House. In their report the Commissioners say that this discretion has been invaluable in enabling them to secure this coincidence of boundaries, and therefore, to deal with parts of the problem on lines which are likely to be permanently satisfactory, at any rate over a period. I should perhaps remind the House that this principle, that local government boundaries and constituency boundaries should coincide, which perhaps is axiomatic, was recommended by the Speaker's Conference, but, of course, what is always apt to happen if there is a considerable interval between one re-distribution of seats and another is that there are changes in local government boundaries without a consequential change in the constituency boundary.
From the report of the Commission the House will have seen—it is indeed evident—that there was very little opposition to, or criticism of, the proposals provisionally formulated and published.

Mr. Bowles: Where does one see the Opposition now?

Sir D. Somervell: I think it is evident from the report that there was very little opposition, for the reasons I am just going to state, namely that these proposals were very widely published and there was a power, which we can be quite certain was exercised in all proper cases, for the Commission to have a local inquiry if they felt that representations were of sufficient body to justify that course. There were only two cases—Altrincham and Harrow—in which the Commission considered it necessary to ask for the appointment of Assistant Commissioners to hold a local inquiry and, broadly

speaking, I think the fact that the proposals were accepted with very little difficulty is the strongest evidence of the care with which the Commission carried out their duties.
My predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), considered these proposals very carefully. He had power under the Act to submit them to the House with modifications if he thought that they required any modification, but he did not consider that they required any modification and I completely endorse his decision. I am asking the House, in accordance with the view he took, to approve these recommendations as a whole.
A point was raised, as to whether there should be a single Order or a number of Orders in Council. I think, if one looks at Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, which says that:
The said report shall be laid by the Secretary of State before Parliament as soon as may be after its submission to him, together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained therein.
Without being a lawyer, one would say that the Act itself contemplated a single Order in Council. I am not saying that as a matter of strict legal interpretation, where the plural generally can include the singular and the singular can include the plural, we should have been precluded legally from bringing a number of Orders before the House, but I think that plainly the House itself contemplated a single Order, which is the course we are adopting. It would be possible—of course, it would be quite impracticable—to have a single Order for each constituency. In all 75 constituencies are affected. You could have split them up into groups and had eleven Orders in Council instead of one. The House, of course, appreciates that detailed Amendments could not be moved in any event, whether there was one Order or whether there were eleven.

Mr. Bowles: No Amendments at all.

Sir D. Somervell: No Amendments at all. All that could have been done would be to reject the recommendations as to a group en bloc. Now I submit to the House that as contemplated by the Act the procedure of a single Order is the most convenient course. In the first place, there are a number of general provisions in the opening paragraphs which have


application in all cases. One could have printed them eleven times over. There is a convenience in having a single document, but the main reason, I would suggest to the House, is that this difficult question of boundaries was considered with great care by the Commission, and I do not think the House could have found a better procedure or a better body for settling this kind of question. There is, of course, in present circumstances, the further point that it is a matter of urgency that the new constituencies should be able to function in the forth-coming election, and the necessary arrangements will be required to be made as quickly as possible.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Nuneaton—indeed he presented a Petition to the House on, I think, Tuesday—has objected in particular to the inclusion of Arley in the new Sutton Coldfield Division. To retain Arley in Nuneaton, as he is very well aware, would mean that the constituency boundary would cease to coincide with the boundary of the Meriden Rural District. This matter came before my predecessor, and he told the hon. Gentleman that he did not think the circumstances that had been put forward justified him in modifying the recommendation and departing from the general principle of coincidence of boundaries. I agree with that decision, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the matter. He stressed the fact that those who live in Arley in the main have their shopping and marketing centre at Nuneaton.

Mr. Bowles: And many other things.

Sir D. Somervell: I think all hon. Members who sit for county Divisions must be very familiar with cases where a town or marketing centre in one constituency is the shopping and marketing centre, and many other things, for the people of another constituency. If we tried to adopt the principle that a person must vote where he markets and shops, we should find it very difficult to apply that principle all round. I thought it worth commenting on that case because there must be many constituencies where it would be quite impossible to take this as a guide. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman and to others that the boundaries which we are asking the House to approve will all come under the review of the permanent Boundary Commission which will consider the redistribu-

tion of seats over the country as a whole. As the Commission made clear in their Report, they did their best to lay out constituencies which would be satisfactory over a longer period, but they pointed out that in certain cases, particularly in regard to part of the Altrincham Division, probably changes would have to be made. Nothing that I say, of course, will betaken as suggesting that the particular point put by the hon. Gentleman is one that requires rectification, but I think it is right to say that he and any others who think this difficult job is capable of improvement in some particular or another will have an opportunity of seeing that representations are made to the permanent Boundary Commission when there is a general review. In this matter I am following in the footsteps of my predecessor who adopted these recommendations. I submit the Draft Order to the House, and I hope the House will approve it.

4.03 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I wish to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment to his present office. During his speech I felt that there was a tendency for Home Secretaries to hang together, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman took the same attitude as his predecessor as far as my applications were concerned. I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not had very much time to go into the matter, but I still feel obliged to put before the House what I think are important considerations. The position is this. This is a try-out, as it were, of a certain number of redistributions that will take place after the next General Election, and the considerations that I would like to put before the House may in due course, if not in this interim redistribution, affect other hon. Members who are not immediately affected to-day.
In order to make my position clear, I would point out that when I arrived in my constituency on the Friday on which the advertisement was placed in the local Press, I was immediately asked by certain local reporters what my views were. I had not had much time to go into the matter, but as I happen to know my constituency fairly well, I immediately mentioned five places—and not only Arley—which, in my opinion, ought to come back to the Nuneaton Parliamentary Division,


because the people in those places have a community of interest with the municipal borough of Nuneaton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to one particular aspect, shopping. I want here to explain that I think the Commission has been a little hasty in one respect. On my behalf, my agent wrote a letter—and I think I sent a covering letter—to the secretary of the Commission setting out certain views in broad detail. This was done within the 28 days allowed, and therefore, I argue that I staked a claim to be heard on behalf of my constituents. There seems to have been no acknowledgement of the letter, or anything of that kind. I must have had a hunch that time was running against me, and I found that the Commission had already finished their work and made their recommendations to the Secretary of State, that they had, as it were, abandoned their job and had been disbanded themselves. Although I know the reason the Commission did not have a local inquiry was that they were not asked to have local inquiries, I think they might at least have asked me what my points were. I think the reason for the attitude they adopted of completely ignoring me was that I was the only person who had complained. But surely one appellant is enough in a case of this kind, because I was able to write to Mr. Speaker and produce quite a lot of evidence from other bodies in the constituency, such as the Chamber of Trade and both the local newspapers.
I would point out that some of the places concerned are valuable from a Labour point of view and some are not—on balance they are—but I think the matter is one of principle and not of political values. I feel that a claim having been staked and an application having been made that the recommendations should be reviewed, the Commission ought at least to have communicated with me in one way or another, and I complain that nothing in the form of a communication was sent either to me or to my agent. When I discovered what the position was, and knowing that the people in Arley, which is the biggest place concerned, felt very strongly about the matter, I wrote a letter to Mr. Speaker, who was Chairman of the Commission, and I have Mr. Speaker's permission to read that letter, which was as follows:

Friday, 27th April, 1945.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
You will remember I saw you recently upon the decision of the Boundary Commissioners not to depart from their original recommendations concerning the new boundaries of the Nuneaton Division. Whether I had any special standing as the sitting Member or not (and here I should mention that Mr. Marples, the secretary, has no trace of a letter from me although I forwarded my agent's letter and newspaper cuttings), I feel I should still be allowed to submit the case for consideration.
Shortly, there exists between Nuneaton and Arley in particular a community of interest as follows: secondary education, petty sessions, shopping"—
and I would point out that in the report in Hansard of my statement on Tuesday, 29th May, in presenting the Petition, there is a misprint—"shopping" is given as "shipping," and this is the heart of the country—
trading and amusement. Arley is only one mile over the Nuneaton boundary. Its only 'bus service goes to Nuneaton. Out of 1,995 voters in Arley nearly 800 have petitioned against the division. More than half the voters were out when called upon.
The Nuneaton Chamber of Trade support my statement that Nuneaton is regarded by the people of Arley as their main shopping centre and regular 'bus services bring them into the town to shop (letter herewith).
One big shop has, in addition to the usual bread and milk deliveries at Arley, over 1,400 registrations of customers living there.
The Town Clerk of Nuneaton writes confirming my statement that Arley, Astley and Wolvey form part of the Nuneaton Petty Sessional Division, and that the children from these areas requiring secondary education are normally accommodated at the King Edward VI Grammar School for Boys and the Nuneaton. High School for Girls (letter herewith).
I have the petition referred to in my possession.
As Member for the division I feel it is reasonable to ask you if the Commission over which you presided had all these considerations before them before arriving at their decision. If not, it seems reasonable that they should consider them before their decision is made irrevocable.
Will you accordingly please seriously consider asking the members of the Commission to reconsider this part of their recommendation and, if they do, to communicate with the Secretary of State before the drafting of the Orders in Council is completed.
You, Sir, handed that, letter to the Secretary of State, who wrote me the following letter:
7th May, 1945.
Dear Bowles,
The Speaker has passed to me your letter to him of 27th April, in which you ask the Boundary Commission to reconsider inclusion


of the Parish of Arley in the Hew Sutton Cold-field Division. As I had already received the Report of the Boundary Commission it was not possible for the Commissioners to take your letter into account, but I have given very careful consideration to the reasons you advance in your letter when deciding whether in this respect I should recommend to Parliament any alteration in the proposals received from the Boundary Commission.
I quite appreciate the reasons you advance for the transfer of this Parish to the new Nuneaton Division on the ground that the population of Arley is generally dependent on Nuneaton in economic and educational matters. On the other hand the boundary of the Nuneaton Division as recommended by the Boundary Commission here conforms with the local Government boundary"—
This is where, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, I think he was in error, as I shall try to prove—
e.g., it follows the boundary between the Atherstone and Sutton Coldfield Rural Districts. This is, therefore, in conformity with Resolution 12 of the Interim Report of the Speaker's Conference, which recommended that the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies shall, where convenient"—
I want the House to bear the words, "where convenient," in mind—
coincide with the boundaries of local government administrative areas. Effect is given to this recommendation in Paragraph (5) of the Third Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1945, under which Act the Boundary Commission is set up. Paragraph (5) provides for the application of this principle 'so far as is practicable' "—
I propose to refer to those five words later—
and I cannot, I am afraid, feel satisfied that the reasons advanced in your letter are sufficient to depart from it on this occasion. There are, as you are doubtless aware, very many cases where an area is situated in a different constituency from the market town or industrial centre on which it is dependent, and if this in itself were considered sufficient reason to depart from the principle it would result in that principle being, to a large extent, inoperative.
My right hon. Friend used the word "principle" four or five times, but it is not principle at all. The phrases, "where convenient," and, "so far as is practicable," are escape clauses, and I hope my right hon. Friend will realise his past errors. The phrase, "So far as is practicable," means, "This is where you start from; where you find a local government boundary stick to it unless the phrase 'where convenient' urges you to lean against it." Over and over again in the Schedule of this draft Order you will find that part of a rural district is in one con-

stridency, and part in another. The Home Office either misunderstood the matter or that was the only ground on which they could possibly make a case. I wrote back to the Home Secretary on 11th May, 1945, as follows:
Dear Morrison,
I thank you for your letter of the 7th instant. You say you do not feel satisfied that the reasons advanced in my letter are sufficient to enable you to depart from the 'principle'—'that so far as is practicable boundaries. of Parliamentary constituencies should, where convenient, coincide with the boundaries of local government administrative areas.' Surely the phrases 'as far as is practicable' and 'where convenient ' have been deliberately inserted to authorise you to depart from the boundaries where the balance of convenience makes this course desirable. I claim that Arley and the other villages mentioned are clearly cases in point. With respect, I submit it is wrong for you to lean so strongly the other way, I accordingly invite you to recommend the alterations I have asked for in the proposals of the Commission which did not call for any evidence at all. A further point is that Arley has hitherto been in the Nuneaton division. In closing, may I seriously ask you to reconsider the important Parliamentary point as to the desirability of submitting the recommendations in a series of draft Orders in Council and not all together? Please refer to columns 1581 to 1583 in Hansard dated 3rd May, 1945.
I suppose it would be impossible for me to persuade the House on this matter but, nevertheless, this arises through having all these things in one draft Order. If we could have had a number of them there would have been no trouble in getting them through. There would have been no trouble in asking the Home Secretary or the Government to take back a particular Order, in order to reconsider it and bring in another one the next day. I do not suppose my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary intended to mislead anybody about the printing, but I cannot accept from this Government that Executive action such as the directing of labour away from the work of printing should ever be an excuse for the Executive to hide behind their own actions. If the Government directed too many printers away so that their business was interfered with then I say that the Government stand condemned. I would like to point out that in the draft Order it states, with reference to altered constituencies:
Bosworth.—The present Bosworth Division, excluding parts of the municipal borough of Nuneaton and of the rural district of Atherstone, but adding the part of the urban district of Hinckley of the parliamentary county of Warwick.


The Order also states:
Rugby.—The present Rugby Division with the addition of part of the rural district of Rugby in the present Nuneaton Division….
This is not a principle; it is an alibi on the part of the Home Office. They probably had the whole thing already printed, and were not prepared to do their job properly. This is a case where a Parliamentary constituency is being over spilt, and I suggest it should go back. As I have said, I do not suppose the House will support me this afternoon, although I think it should, and I hope that another time when other Members find similar causes for complaint they will, in some way, indicate to the Home Office that we require each recommendation to be put before the House in single Orders, and not in an omnibus Order. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make my protest. I am certain that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and I am sure that the present Home Secretary is very sorry at having to follow so religiously in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend his predecessor, and that perhaps he will make amends and next time, if he is still in office, see that justice is done.

4.23 p.m.

Sir Reginald Blair: For me this is a question of "better late than never," but, as a Member whose present electorate is being divided into at least seven Parliamentary Divisions by the Order we are discussing, I welcome it, and I hope it will go through very rapidly. It has taken a long time, because it was as far back as February, 1936, that the question of redistribution of seats was put to the then Government. I hope the Commission will get on with their work at once, and will be able to remove some of the anomalies that exist at present.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I would like to thank the Home Secretary for introducing this Order at the eleventh hour. It will be a great relief to those like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Colonel Llewellin), who have constituencies which are two, three or even four times the average size, and who are to have them reduced to a reasonable size before the election.
I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question. The Boundary Com-

mission over which you presided, Mr. Speaker, created a number of new seats, the boundaries of which corresponded precisely with those of municipal boroughs, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said. But in their original draft they did not recommend the creation of any new Parliamentary boroughs. They kept all these new divisions, although they were the same areas as municipal boroughs, as county divisions. Some of us took exception to that, and made representations to the Boundary Commission, with the result that that was, to a large extent, corrected. Hon. Members will see, if they look at the draft Order, that in Cheshire, Middlesex, Surrey, Essex and Kent a number of new Parliamentary boroughs are to be created. They go even further, and create the new Parliamentary borough of Harrow, which is not a municipal borough at all, but an urban district. I think all that is very desirable, because there is no doubt at all that these areas are, in fact, urban and. ought to get the benefit of the lower rate of expenditure of 5d. instead of 6d. per voter which prevails in the Parliamentary boroughs. But why make exceptions to this principle? If my right hon. and learned Friend looks at page 12 of the Order he will see that Acton and Brentford and Chiswick remain county divisions although, in fact, I understand that the county division of Acton consists precisely of the municipal borough of Acton, and that the county division of Brentford and Chiswick consists precisely of the municipal borough of Brentford and Chiswick. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give me a reply oh this point.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I would like to support the protest which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) on the inclusion of all these Parliamentary boroughs in one Schedule. I am not rising with any hope of altering the present Order—it is obviously far too late to do that—but I am worried as to what might happen with the next redistribution of seats, in which a large number of London constituencies will, quite rightly, disappear. If we are to be presented on that occasion with a Schedule, in which all the constituencies concerned appear together, and it will not be possible for a Member to


argue against one, with any hope of having that particular decision reconsidered, I think the House will be put into an impossible situation, and that Members and local interests will be severely and unjustifiably handicapped. I ask the Home Secretary to give us an undertaking, if he possibly can, that on the occasion when constituencies are to disappear—and that is an occasion when more interests are hurt and more people are disturbed—we shall have presented to us each proposed alteration separately, so that the House can deal with each one separately without being forced to vote against the whole body of the proposed alterations.

Mr. Bowles: Why does my hon. Friend limit the request to the Home Secretary? Why not have the general principle accepted by the Home Office?

Mr. Strauss: I was trying to say that on the next occasion regarding the creation of new constituencies or the disappearance of old ones the principle of separate representation should take place.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think part of the difficulty which my hon. Friend has just alluded to arises from the fact that we are dealing, on this occasion, with redistribution by Order whereas on previous occasions it has been dealt with in the Schedules to the Representation of the People Acts of 1918 and 1885. On the last occasion—I was not a Member of the House although I was following the proceedings with interest—two constituencies were preserved which it had been suggested, in the Schedule, should be abolished, namely, East Fife and Carnarvon Boroughs, the only district of boroughs to remain and a tribute to the work that had been done by the late Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. If that is to be the case on the next occasion, it might involve practically every county, and nearly every Parliamentary borough, in England being rearranged. If we were then faced with the position of having one order dealing with the whole country, it is clear that a substantial injustice might be done. I regret that in carrying out this work the Commission did not more strictly adhere to the local government boundaries in most cases than they did during the period since 1918. The effect of the Local Government Act, 1929, has been that a number of Review of County

District Orders have been made which have altered municipal boundaries and boundaries between urban and rural districts by a couple of hundred yards or so along the road. One now has the amazing anomaly that people are in an urban district and a county electoral division, which is not included in the Parliamentary division in which they vote, or vice versa.
I find one case, for instance, in Surrey. In the fourth column of the Schedule it is proposed to include within the new Epsom County Division the small parish of Chessington. All its main roads and bus services lead into Surbiton and it is an integral part of Surbiton and has nothing to do with Epsom. I cannot help thinking that that is unfortunate. There should be a genuine effort to get people associated for all government purposes with the constituencies, whether municipal, local, county or Parliamentary. I hope when the next revision takes place that principle will be observed rather more than it has been in some cases on this. There will always be the kind of anomaly in which you have a small district which is really an overspill from another. It was for such cases as that, I imagine, that the safeguarding words my hon. Friend alluded to were included in the instructions given to the Commissioners. I hope that on the next occasion we shall not be faced with one Order dealing with the whole of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and any other places which also by that time may attempt to interfere with the sacred principle of home rule for England.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I find the Parliamentary methods of my successor a little embarrassing. He comes to the House with this Order and, faced with potential opposition and criticism from my hon. Friends, promptly proceeds to take me as his sole effective defence in the matter. It is very complimentary. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will always do what I should have done if I had still been at the Home Office though I am not sure that he will—as the next Business on the Paper shows. On the other hand, I am in the position that I have an obligation to defend this Order even more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, because it is my Order. I congratulate him on his appointment to


the Home Office. It is one with which he has had a good deal of familiarity and contact in the past for many good reasons—I hope they were all good reasons—and the Department will not be wholly unfamiliar to him. I wish, him happiness and success in his office, though we will keep observation upon him and will not hesitate to criticise him when we think it necessary in the public interest. My own relations with him in the late Government were always good. Perhaps they will not be so good now, but we shall try to keep them as sweet as is consistent with divergence of political principles.
With regard to these Orders, I cannot find any adequate answer to the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) that they ought to have been submitted in such a way that they could be challenged separately. Earlier in the war the Government had a practice, for which I was partly responsible, of submitting to the House Orders in Council which embodied a number of Defence Regulations, and objection was taken by Conservative Members on the ground that, if they wished to oppose a particular Order, they could not very well do so without opposing the whole Order in Council, which included a number of Defence Regulations to which they took no objection, and they could never get a really fair vote on the merits of the case that they were putting forward. We met that case subsequently by submitting Defence Regulations in one document but numbering them separately, so that each could be challenged if the House so desired. I blame myself that the point did not occur to me sufficiently early. I think my hon. Friend is on a fair point for consideration in the future because it is a bit awkward if he wishes to challenge the Order in relation to one constituency, and is driven to the position that he has to challenge the whole redistribution. In those circumstances he is beaten before he starts.
I hope the Home Secretary will give an undertaking that in future he will consider this point and see whether it cannot be met, so that Members can challenge specific constituency boundaries if they so desire. I admit that there is a difficulty about it. If a recommendation for the boundary of a new constituency is successfully challenged or is taken back

by the Government, it is clear that not only the boundary of that constituency goes into the melting pot but at least one other. Indeed, it might affect two or three. Even so, the Member who is criticising or challenging has a better chance to get his point before the House if the area of challenge is limited than if it covers the whole field of the 25 constituencies, and next time it may be over the whole country. I am only saying now what I told my hon. Friend when I was Home Secretary, that he is on a fair point and has been put into a bad position. At this stage I cannot help it and he will have to put up with it. I told him he was entitled to have a row with me when the Order came. He has not had a row with me but with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My heart is with my hon. Friend on Parliamentary grounds but my vote will have to be with the Home Secretary, because in the circumstances in which I was placed it was not practicable to meet the point, but I hope next time it may be so.
The other point is about the local government areas. I agree that the wording is not slavish. There is elbow room to ignore local government boundaries if it is expedient so to do, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we should not lightly set aside local government boundaries. It is an inconvenience to municipal authorities' clerks and council and town clerks if they have to confer with two or three Members of Parliament. Other things being equal, there is a great deal to be said for the local government boundaries being co-terminous with Parliamentary divisions. However, I do not dispute with my hon. Friend that that should not be slavishly followed if there is a good case to the contrary, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a lot to be said for local government boundaries as a bias in the shaping of constituency boundaries. I support the Motion and, in view of the fact that my successor has relied so exclusively on my wisdom and virtue in the matter, I can do no other than say I think he is right.

4.42 p.m.

Sir D. Somervell: I should like very much to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and good wishes and to endorse fully the friendly relations between myself in my office and him in


his which always prevailed in the past. I agree that in the future the relations may be somewhat different at times and I shall endeavour to give as good as I get. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) about boundaries, I think he might have a look at paragraph 8 of the Report. I think the difference arises from the fact that the two cases that he mentioned were existing divisions the boundaries of which were only being slightly readjusted and not new boroughs where something was being carved out afresh.
On the general point about Orders, it is intended that, if we are having to deal with a general distribution of England, Scotland and Wales, that should be by a Bill brought before Parliament. In other cases probably the problem is less likely to arise in as acute a form as it does here because, if we get local boundary reports, they will deal with a particular area and will probably come up singly. The Boundary Commission will have reviewed a particular area and we shall not get a single report covering 11 disconnected areas. Apart from that, I will take notice of what my hon. Friend says. I quite agree that it is not desirable to throw a great deal of miscellaneous matter at the House in one Order if you can separate it. On the other hand, I am sure that my hon. Friends on each side of the House will agree that one of the main ideas behind this Act was that an outside independent body is, broadly speaking, the best to decide the difficult questions which arise when it is proposed that a particular bit is taken out of one constituency and put into another. I thank the House for the response it has given to this Order. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has put his point strongly, but I should like to thank him for the spirit in which he has spoken.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that I referred to the fact that, although a complaint had been lodged in time, no notice was taken by the Commission. Will he see that in future, when either Members or bodies make representations, without expressly saying that they want to be heard, they will at least be communicated with?

Sir D. Somervell: I was told that we had no information about that. It must, however, be a matter for the Commission because, if the House sets up a Statutory

Commission, the matter passes out of the hands of the Minister. I am sure, however, that if there was a mistake, those who were responsible for it would regret it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft of an Order in Council entitled the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order, 1945, a copy of which was presented on 17th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, which has been amended from time to time, has always had embodied in it the principle that it should run for a period of a year and should then expire unless extended by this House. In one case, in 1940, the extension was by a supplementary Act, but the procedure provided for in the Act is that it may be renewed for a period of 12 months by an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament. There is no power under the existing law to renew by an Address for a shorter period than a year. If we adopt the Address procedure, we must extend for the full period of a year. The present position is that the Emergency Powers Acts, with the Defence Regulations which are left after my predecessor's raid on them the other day when 84 fell by the wayside with general approval, will expire on 24th August. That is the date when the 12 months under the Address which was moved in July last year expires. Everybody would agree that steps must be taken before Parliament dissolves to continue the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, with the Regulations under them.
The present Bill simply extends the Acts for a period of six months. We must have a Bill to do that, although it is in one sense doing only one-half of what could be done by an Address, but we


do not think it right, for reasons which I will state a little more definitely, to ask the House at this stage of our affairs to continue these Acts for the full period of 12 months. The fact that they are extended for only six months means that before that period expires the then Government must come back to the then Parliament on this issue in some form or other.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On what form of issue is it proposed to bring it up?

Sir D. Somervell: I am coming to that. I am getting a little nervous about relying upon the right hon. Gentleman's decisions or statements in the past. I thought, when I was producing the Order in Council which was obviously going to get general approval, that I ought to give honour where honour was due. On the last occasion when the Act was renewed, my predecessor gave some pledges to the House which are important in relation not only to the shortening of the extension period from 12 to 6 months, but also to the Government's decision with regard to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, which has been introduced but not yet discussed in any form. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Debate on14th July last year, emphasised the point that, after the cessation of the war in Europe, the House would be entitled to have an opportunity for a full review of the Emergency Powers issue. He said:
When a situation arises in which there is a prima facie case for reviewing this matter the Government will not evade the issue but will come to the House afresh and say, 'Let us have a talk about it.' 
He said also that it would be the duty of the Government
to come to Parliament and to consult Parliament and to give the House the fullest opportunity of reviewing the whole position and considering the extent and nature of the Emergency Powers which ought to be continued
after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.—[OFFICIAL REPORT,14th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 2083–4.]
That was completely reasonable, and we entirely accept those declarations in the letter and in the spirit. It is because this Parliament will plainly not have time to give to this issue in all its aspects the attention which it deserves, and which the right hon. Gentleman promised Par-

liament it should have, that we feel the course we are adopting is the proper course. Under it the new Parliament will have the fullest opportunity of reviewing the whole position. On the question of the time that remains to us, the House is well aware of the position. We heard the statement on Business to-day. There are some Bills, like the Finance Bill, which are essential. There are a number of Bills on which the House has already done a lot of work which it is the general wish of all parties should reach the Statute book. There are the Supply days, which, in any case, have to be cut down.
Let me, therefore, first address my remarks to the question whether in the position in which we are now it would have been right to ask the House to have this promised review on the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. I submit that the general question could not have the full consideration which it ought to have and which the Government a year ago said it should have. I then come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman raised in a Question on Tuesday, whether anything would be jeopardised by the postponement. In the circumstances when this Bill was introduced, I foreshadowed, and I expect everybody did, that there would be considerable discussions upon it. It may well be that the general principles of the Bill commend themselves to everybody, namely, the principle that we could be certain that when we pass into more normal times as the war emergency, which is still fully with us, fades away that it should be clear that the Government have the necessary powers; and the other principle which the Bill involves, that in this field there should be greater Parliamentary control.
These two principles may well, and I hope will, be fully accepted, but undoubtedly this is a Bill on which I would anticipate considerable discussions, not only on Second Reading, but in Committee. There are, for instance, the precise wording of Clause 1, which deals with additional transitional powers, and the question of the two years' limit and whether it is right to go on for two years irrespective of the Emergency Powers Acts being brought to an end. Anybody with experience of this House will realise that there are many matters which would have to be discussed. There is another


matter which I am sure was included in what was stated on behalf of the Government a year ago. That is not only what I may call the form of this Bill and the Committee points which might be raised on it, but a general review by the House of the Emergency Powers at the time when this discussion comes to be held. In this matter there are thus two things which are equally important, but the second, from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, is more important than the first. The first is the extent and form of the powers which can be exercised. Obviously, so long as we are at war with Japan, we must have the widest possible powers, but the question which the citizen is interested in is what use we make of those powers and whether we make an excessive use of them in the circumstances as they exist.
That seems to me to be precisely the matter which the Government intended that the House should have the opportunity of reviewing when the right hon. Gentleman spoke on their behalf. It is impossible in the present state of business to hold that review now. The right hon. Gentleman raised the other day, and I am grateful to him for doing it because it is an important point, and it is right it should be cleared up, the point whether, if we postponed the Supplies and Services Bill, such matters as housing and furniture will be prejudiced in the interval through the Departments concerned not having sufficient powers. That is the legal question, and on questions of law the House will look to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General rather than to the Home Secretary. I have had a few words with him, not for the first time on this issue in the course of the last five years, just to be sure that he did not let me down when he came to reply. I can assure the House that we have been discussing this matter from different angles for a long time more or less continuously. I can assure the House that there is no foundation for the fear that the postponement of the Supplies and Services Bill will hamper any Government Department in continuing and exercising such controls as are required in connection with housing, furnishing and the various other similar matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Under the Emergency Powers Acts which we are asking the House to extend for a further period there is full provision for all the controls which

are essential for these purposes. Not only is the end of hostilities in Europe not the end of the war but, as we have been very forcibly reminded—I was looking for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food—we are still in the position of having a war scarcity of supplies. That position is as acute as it has ever been. Therefore, the necessity for exercising powers for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community has seldom been more clear than it is at present.
I agree with the idea in the first part of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill that a period will come when, from the strictly legal point of view, doubt might be raised as to whether the circumstances justify the use of the existing powers for the purposes which at the moment we have in mind, and that should be provided for. But at this stage it is rather the political than the legal side which in my view is the governing factor which would have led the late Government, if it had continued, to ask the House at this stage to review the whole position and consider a two years' policy. This period to which I have referred, when it may be said that the existing powers are wearing a little thin, and when the Government may say that, apart from their political obligation to put the whole issue before the House, from the legal point of view the line is getting a little near, will undoubtedly be in the life of the new Parliament. This is a very important matter from every point of view—from the constitutional point of view and from the point of view of the transition from war to peace. I believe it would have been quite wrong to have attempted to rush this through without proper discussion, which it could not have. In the view of the Government it is the new Parliament which should deal with the matter.
Before I sit down I would like to say a word on the general question of controls, which is concerned very much in this issue. There have been various statements on the matter. There was in the White Paper on Employment Policy a statement which, I think, puts it very well. It says:
The Government have no intention of maintaining war-time restrictions for restriction's sake. But they are resolved that, so long as supplies are abnormally short, the most urgent needs shall be met first. Without some of the existing controls this could not be achieved;


prices would rise and the limited supplies would go, not to those whose need was the greatest, but to those able to pay the highest price. The Government are confident that the public will continue to give, for as long as is necessary, the same wholehearted support to the policy of 'fair shares' that it has given in war-time.
The first sentence of that statement,
The Government have no intention of maintaining war-time restrictions for restriction's sake,
was very well exemplified by the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman, with a promptitude which I think must have impressed the House on 9th May, when 84 Defence Regulations went—I am not sure where they go when they die. I agree that it is important that the process of seeing what we can dispense with should be continually kept in mind. We have to keep a very large measure of control, but there are some things—some of them harassing—which can be got rid of, and for my part so far as they come within my control I will do my best to see that that is done. I will give one example. The right hon. Gentleman removed certain restrictions on passages to Northern Ireland a few days ago, and I was able to make a statement in answer to a Question to-day with regard to restrictions on passages to Southern Ireland. The Government are fully alive to the importance of removing restrictions which are unnecessary.
I commend this Bill to the House. I do not say the situation was an easy one, but we believe we have adopted the right principle in asking the House to approve this Bill extending the Emergency Acts for six months and leaving to the new Parliament the important task of having a full discussion and making up its mind in the light of that full discussion what should be done in the future. If in this matter I find myself in controversy with the right hon. Gentleman I shall regret it, but we will do our best on both sides. I assure him that I have regarded the assurance which he gave to the House on this question in July, 1944, as of great importance.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to have us with him as he did on the previous Motion on the Order Paper. I totally disagree with the Government's decision. I believe

the Government's decision is absolutely contrary to the public interest. I believe it is unnecessary; they ought to have carried through the programme which the last Government agreed on the introduction of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers)Bill, and they should have combined that with the understanding there was with the House that when the European war came to an end there would be a review of these exceptional powers. I do not see why that should not have taken place within the time at our disposal. Indeed, the review started when I announced—I think on V-Day plus 1—the abandonment of the regulations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. The House had got a big concession in that respect, and a perfectly proper one. Indeed, it was not a concession; I was only too glad to make the announcement. But there it was, and there was the contribution to this problem. I said then with the full authority of the Government, that they would go, and others would be reviewed from time to time, and in order that we could get proper continuity in the exercise of the functions of economic control within an appropriate field, legislation would be introduced in order to enable those regulations to be met in relation to the transition to peace as they had been in relation to the actual conduct of- the war. The Bill was introduced, and I think it was a very good Bill. It had the full authority of the late Government behind it, and certainly it was not produced after inadequate discussion in Ministerial circles. There was plenty of discussion, as one would expect on a subject of this kind. The Bill was introduced with direct Cabinet authority; I see that it was
presented by Mr. Secretary Morrison, supported by Mr. Lyttelton, Sir Andrew Duncan, Mr. Attorney-General and Miss Wilkinson.
Therefore, the former Attorney-General is fully committed to this Bill but he has not said a word in support of it this afternoon.

Sir D. Somervell: I was not moving it.

Mr. Morrison: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has some responsibility for this Bill which was before the House and which was still obtainable from the Vote Office. He has said nothing about the merits of the Bill. Would he like to do so?

Sir D. Somervell: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I did not think it would be in Order to go into details, but I said that the two general principles of this Bill, on the back of which, of course, my name appeared, would command general assent from all quarters. There was, of course, room for discussion of the details.

Mr. Morrison: That is evasive. It is easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say he supports the two general principles in the Bill, and it is equally easy to come along later and object to nearly every detail in the Bill. His name is on the back of the Bill and he will not say now whether he supports the Bill or not. He will not go any further than say that he accepts the two general principles running through the Bill.
It is obvious what has happened on this Bill. The vested interests have got going. That is perfectly clear. [Laughter.] It docs not matter whether hon. Members laugh or do not laugh. It is obvious. I could laugh about it if it were not so sad from the point of view of the interests of the country. It is perfectly clear that this new Government, losing their enlightened Labour and Liberal elements and those elements which are concerned with the furtherance of public interests, have promptly reverted to true Tory type, and in this respect they are acting not as a public-spirited Government but as a political instrument of vested interests which want to do what they like with the economic welfare of the country. That is what is happening. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh about it, but before we have done with them they will laugh on the other side of their faces. This Government have surrendered to the forces of economic anarchy who want to do what they like and never mind about the welfare of Britain and the British people. This is a shameful surrender to the vested interests which control and dictate the policies of the Conservative Party, and, of course, the other elements in the Government have got to swallow it.
Why was this Bill necessary? I am not a lawyer, but nowadays neither is the right hon. and learned Gentleman a lawyer. He is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and whereas I always listened to him with great respect on legal matters, when he was the

Attorney-General, I am not obliged to listen to him on law now. Indeed, as he said, he must listen to the new Attorney-General—whom I would also congratulate on his elevation and thank for the co-operation I had from him, as from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am bound to say I think we have had some risky legal opinion from the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon. I speak with reserve, and I will try to speak with modesty, but I am not at all sure that he is right. The operative provision on scope is to be found, I think, in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, Section 1 (1) of which provides—
Subject to the provisions of this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council make such Regulation (in this Act referred to as 'Defence Regulations') as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
The scope of that Sub-section must be read in conjunction with the long Title of the Bill, which is an Act to confer on His Majesty
certain powers which it is expedient that His Majesty should be enabled to exercise in the present emergency.
I would emphasise "in the present emergency." It goes on:
and to make further provision for purposes connected with the defence of the realm.
I again say that I pretend to be no legal authority, but nobody can have been for nearly five years at the Home Office without being apprehensive of going over the line. One cannot hear lawyers argue the difference between intra vires and ultra vires without feeling the necessity for being careful. The courts of our country are very good institutions, but one does not know whether some day they may jump and decide that something which we thought was intra vires is ultra vires. I submit that there is the gravest doubt, to put it mildly, whether, under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of that Statute, read in conjunction with the wording of the long Title, we are entitled to use the Defence Regulations in relation to the supply of building materials for post-war houses or to secure furniture in adequate quantities for the general body of the people as against furniture for rich men's offices, and so on. The new


Attorney-General will have his work cut out if he is challenged in the courts to prove that they come within the Subsection, read in conjunction with the long Title.

Mr. Molson: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Are we to understand that he considers that the "present emergency" came to an end when he left the Home Office?

Mr. Morrison: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was a lawyer. If he is, he had better keep to law and not make jokes of that kind. Further argument will be contributed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is perfectly competent to argue legal points with anybody, whereas I am not. I admit it.
We come to the point whether it is reasonable to argue that the priorities of control over building materials and prices, and control of timber for furnishing, the dirction of business undertakings to put the manufacturing of this in front of the manufacturing of that, the utility furniture programme, the manufacturing of components and so on, are to do with the prosecution of the war, which is the real essence of the Emergency Powers Act. If it is argued that they arose out of the war, I still think the wording is a bit doubtful. Surely we are in danger. Ministers must consider dangers as well as legal speculations. One of these days a court of law may say: "All this has to do with the transition to peace. It has to do with economic reorganisation and it is not a matter which is related, in the words of the long Title, to 'exceptional powers which His Majesty should exercise in the present emergency.' " I think there is real, grave doubt about it.
The Bill which I introduced postulated the kind of things which have to be considered, and would have extended the scope of the Defence Regulations to a field covering:
a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution; the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as the result of war.
There is another point also. The six months extension will leave us for an-

other six months with the Statute as it was. Here I hope to have the support of an hon. Member who supports the Government, but who, from the back benches opposite, was a very keen watch-dog over these matters. A point of importance arises and I hope that he will support me, notwithstanding the change that has taken place. One of the criticisms in relation to the Emergency Powers Act was that, under the existing legislation, only the Defence Regulation itself can be challenged by Prayer. That is the case. It was necessarily and properly the case, in the conditions of the European war, that Orders, often exceedingly important Orders almost amounting to Statutes, should be made by various Departments, especially economic Departments, but they are not capable of any Parliamentary challenge at all unless arrangements are made through the usual channels. Some of the directions were important and of a legislative character.
The Bill which I introduced provided that Orders or directions of a legislative character could be challenged in the House by Prayer. So far as I can see, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made no provision for that at all. Let hon. Members opposite face what they are doing. I do not want to cause any mischief, but they are continuing for another six months after the end of the European war, which was mainly in mind when the Emergency Powers Act was passed, a Measure giving to the Government complete and unchecked power, within a doubtful realm of law, to make Orders and directions of a legislative character, without the slightest possibility of Parliamentary check or the tabling of a Prayer, unless they can get the permission of the Whips and of the usual channels to do so. All I can say is that if I had come along with such a proposal I should have expected trouble.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that the present Ministers now in power will not use these provisions against vested interests, whereas he might have done so? Hon. Members opposite are not afraid.

Mr. Morrison: That is possibly a worthy explanation of the situation. However, I must put the case to hon. Members of the Conservative Party. My hon. Friend must not destroy my argument as I go


along, because I am hoping to get sortie support. My hon. Friend is on a fair point. There is an answer I would make, if I were an hon. Member opposite. It may be that the Home Secretary will say on behalf of the Government: "We have no intention of using these powers to any material extent. We are a Government who do not believe in using these powers to any extent that we can avoid." The answer for hon. Members opposite should be: "We do not want to have these powers, without a proper Parliamentary check." Home Secretaries are here today and gone tomorrow, and it is not a question of whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is worthy or not, but of whether the Government should have these very big and extraordinary powers after the conclusion of the European war.
It is perfectly true that His Majesty is still at war with the Empire of Japan. It may be argued, that being so, that the Government can still do what they like, but I suggest that they cannot, for two reasons. One is illustrated by what I have said about the things which are not really part of the prosecution of the war and secondly, measures necessary in relation to the European plus the Japanese war may not be so necessary to the Japanese war alone. I suggest that the procedure which the Government have adopted in this unworthy little Bill is wrong and ought not to have been adopted. The Parliamentary checks are gone and undoubtedly necessary powers needed for peace purposes in relation to shortages, etc., are not in the Bill adequately. What will the result be? If the Minister of Works or the President of the Board of Trade goes to the Cabinet or to the appropriate Committee of the Cabinet, and seeks new Regulations or new Orders to control building materials and supplies, or furnishings, in order that the men who are coming back, many of whom will get married, may have somewhere to live and furniture to house them when they get here, the Attorney-General may have to advise that the powers will be too severely limited. The net result, which I have no doubt is desired either by the Government or some of its influential supporters, will be a nervousness to use these powers and pressure upon the Government not to use them. That will result in a steady drift into a state of economic anarchy, and when the men come back to find homes and furniture

they will not find them, because His Majesty's present advisers have not done the right thing.
What is the defence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He says that there was no time and that this legislation could not be rushed. I suppose it is better to rush the Election. If legislation could not be put through it is because the Election is being rushed. Who is objecting to the Bill which was agreed to by the Coalition Government? Who is threatening obstruction and to hold up the Bill? It was not on our side. We were supporting the Bill. Where was the trouble coming from? From the opponents of control, inside and outside Parliament. The Bill would not have taken long. I am not sure that it would take any longer than this one will before we have done with it. It was agreed to within the Government that it was to be put through. It is time that Ministers representing other parties should take responsibility, instead of getting scared at the slightest breath of opposition or criticism.
Therefore it seems to me that the Bill is the wrong way of going about the matter. We are left in a situation of grave legal doubt. I believe that the hand of the Government will be paralysed either because they wish it to be paralysed on grounds of policy, or it may be paralysed on grounds of legal power. It is inevitable. How long are we to go on like this? For six months? The new Parliament will not be declared elected until July. August will be coming upon us. The House can meet, it is true, and there could be business throughout August and September. Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. If it does, we are going right into that time, with the Government inadequately armed to see that their economic problems are properly tackled. On the other hand Conservative Members, if they agree, are going to leave them without those additional Parliamentary checks which I thought it right to produce in the Bill. It will be well into the Autumn before we see legislation, and what that legislation will be, the Home Secretary has not given us the least idea. He is quite right not to have done so, because he has not the least idea. He will not be there, the Government will not be there, I hope—we will do our best in that respect—but even if it were there, he is not in a posi-


tion to say what the Government think ought to be done. It is clear that the Government have got into a somewhat ramshackle state of mind and have no policy, and do not know where they are.
We must agree to the Bill, because, if we do not, the Government will be without any emergency powers in relation to the prosecution of the war against Japan. Therefore, we have to assent to the Bill. Moreover, they would not have other emergency powers which it is necessary to maintain for the time being. We are in a cleft stick. If we vote against the Bill we shall be misunderstood, and it is not nice to be misunderstood, especially with an Election impending. Therefore, I do not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. But, on behalf, not only of myself, but of my hon. Friends, and, I believe, on behalf of every intelligent public-spirited citizen in the country, I utter my deepest and most sincere protest at the way in which the Government have now deliberately, and with malice aforethought, side-tracked the issue of economic control. We object to their procedure, and condemn it. We shall make it clear in the course of the coming weeks why we do so.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Molson: It is always a pleasure to listen to, the Parliamentary performances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morrison). In the days when some of my hon. Friends and I were asking that Parliament should be allowed to have more control over the delegated legislation, which he produced in such large quantities when he was at the Home Office, we always had a deft and skilful Parliamentary speech in order to show how necessary it was for him to have those powers. Now that he has crossed the Floor, and it is proposed to continue those very extensive powers for a further six months, we have had the same Parliamentary dexterity shown in order to produce an electioneering speech. We have been told that these powers which he exercised, these great and all-embracing powers, which extended into almost every realm of the national and economic activity of the country, will be insufficient to enable the Government to maintain control during the transitional period of the next few months.
It must be remembered from the purely legal point of view that we are still at war with Japan, and the effect of this Bill is to continue for a further six months those provisions of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree have served him to very good purpose in order to bring about what I think I have read in speeches he has made out of doors, that general Socialistic control of the economic life of the country which has proved so successful and brought the country through to victory. Why is it that these powers, which were adequate to enable him to render those great services to the country which he rendered, and which were exercised also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. E.Bevin), are suddenly going to prove inadequate to enable the Government to control these sinister vested interests which he suddenly finds now amongst those Conservatives who rendered him, on the whole, very loyal support during the last few years? Of course, things change. Nothing pleased me more than the support the right hon. Gentleman suddenly obtained from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and the cordial support and gratitude he expressed for the unwonted kind words which came from just behind him.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask the hon. Member to what precisely he is addressing himself? As I understand it, the Bill to which my right lion. Friend referred was a product of the Coalition Government, and if the Election had been postponed for a few weeks, the hon. Member would be making a speech supporting the Bill. Why does he now object to the Bill which he would have supported had the Coalition Government continued?

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member has interrupted a little too soon. I shall say a few kind words soon about the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney introduced. At the moment, I was addressing myself to the Bill that happens to be before the House. That Bill continues for six months to come the powers contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. The right hon. Gentleman, having read out the first part of it, including the fact that Orders may be made by His Majesty


for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
went on to say that that must be understood to be subject to the long Title of the Act which stated that it conferred certain powers which
it is expedient that His Majesty should be enabled to exercise in the present emergency;
I then inquired—a pleasantry which the right hon. Gentleman did not take in very good part—whether the emergency had come to an end at the time he left the Home Office. That is certainly not the kind of critical description I shall make of his term of office.

Dr. Morgan: Get on to the Bill.

Mr. Molson: I am dealing with the words of the Act which this Bill is continuing for a further six months. Surely, it is quite obvious that under this Bill the powers which were exercised during war-time can be exercised for a further six months, and "the present emergency" has not yet come to an end. So long as the war with Japan continues all the powers which have been exercised under this Act, in the past, can still continue to be exercised. That surely can hardly be disputed. Have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen been satisfied with the powers they have exercised during the war in Europe? The same powers will continue to apply under the present Bill for a further six months.
I hope that the Government will, in due course, introduce a Bill similar in principle to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, and that they will not avail themselves of the power under Clause 1 of this Bill to go on extending the Emergency Powers Act by Resolution for 12 months. We have in the past criticised the extension by Resolution of the powers for 12 months at a time, and it is obvious that under the present Bill it would be possible for the prolongation to be carried on in exactly the same way. I certainly understood the Home Secretary to make it quite plain that the only reason he is proceeding by a Bill which extends the Act of 1939 is simply the shortage of Parliamentary time. Although perhaps he was not entirely explicit, it seemed to me to be absolutely plain that the new Government, if they are returned, have every intention of passing legisla-

tion after the General Election in order to put this matter upon a satisfactory basis. It would be a good thing if, from the Treasury Bench, we had an express undertaking that there will be no further extension of these war-time powers indefinitely into the future, but that there will be that opportunity for the House of Commons to take stock of the whole issue, and pass legislation which will enable Orders and Regulations to be made for the transitional period.
I hope that when that Bill is introduced credit will be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney for the changed character of the Bill which he has introduced. For so long, many of us here who were concerned for the liberty of the subject were pressing him to agree to greater Parliamentary control over this delegated legislation. Month after month, indeed, year after year, passed by, and at last our appeals softened his heart. It was last Summer that the then Government accepted the Resolution which I moved in favour of setting up a Select Committee to examine all Statutory Rules and Orders. That, apparently, was not the extent of the beneficial effect upon his mind which was effected by Conservative Member of the House of Commons. Here we now have a Bill in which he goes further than he has ever gone before. Not only was the House of Commons to be given an opportunity of approving or disapproving Orders made directly under the Defence Act but the same was to apply to Orders made under the Orders—to grandchildren as well as to children of the Act, so to speak. It is with great satisfaction that we notice that during the time the right hon. Gentleman was at the Home Office those totalitarian and Fascist ideas with which he started, have gradually been eliminated from his mind. I would like therefore to pay him a warm tribute and say that I am so glad that during that long and distinguished period at the Home Office he should have moved in a constitutional direction. There was no Bill which he introduced during all that long time which showed so sound and sympathetic an appreciation of the principles of the Constitution as the Bill for which, unfortunately, there is no longer Parliamentary time.
I hope the Government will give us a clear undertaking that the Bill which they are introducing now is intended as a purely transitional Measure for only six


months, and that we shall be given the opportunity of having legislation in the new Parliament which will, in these many important matters, carry out the principles to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney is so new but so zealous an adherent.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: We have had another example of one of those speeches which recently carried the colleagues of the hon. Member to the Front bench. I note from the newspapers today that he has moved up, so that he is next in the file for promotion. We ought to pay him a tribute, and to pay the Conservative Party a tribute, because the restrained and mild rebellions that the hon. Members have been carrying out in the last few years have had a suitable reward in obscure under-secretary ships.

Mr. Molson: Was it not rather similar when the hon. Member was asked to reply for the Labour Party executive committee at Blackpool?

Mr. Bevan: On the contrary, I would remind my hon. Friend that my rebellions carried me straight to the most exalted position. At any rate, I was elected, not appointed. I was not the subject, or perhaps the victim, of the caprice of the leaders of a party.

Mr. Molson: My humble preferment last night was also one of election.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We should now cease to talk about preferment.

Mr. Bevan: I hope you will not prevent me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from extending in advance my felicitations to my hon. Friend for what is about to befall him. I find it extremely difficult to understand the line his argument was taking. He taunted my right hon. Friend with seeming to assume that the emergency had come to an end when he crossed the Floor. But surely he forgot that, before my right hon. Friend crossed the Floor, the Coalition Government had unanimously agreed that the emergency had come to an end sufficiently for a Bill to be introduced clarifying the situation. Therefore, his taunt was quite pointless, as indeed were most of the periods of his speech. The position has been made perfectly clear that a Conservative Govern-

ment now impose restraints upon their own actions. They fear, quite properly, that in the next six months there will be pressure brought to bear upon them, if unhappily they are returned to office, to use some of these powers. By leaving the frontiers of the powers in sufficient ambiguity they make it very difficult for Ministers to act, because all their legal advisers will say, "You had better not do this," or "You had better not go so far as that, because if you do you may find yourself in conflict with the courts." The Government are making it as difficult as possible for themselves to take action which is politically distasteful, but which it would be in the public interest to take.
Let me ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a question. We have been, in the last few days, in private conversation about facilitating in the House during the next few weeks some of the Bills which were in process of being enacted when the Prime Minister had his storm. Has he asked the House for facilities to pass the Bill which was introduced by my right hon. Friend?

Sir D. Somervell: I repeat that I do not regard that as an urgent Bill. We have full powers, and it seems quite wrong to give up what ought to be powers for a limited time, and to substitute long-term powers.

Mr. Bevan: We have been asking during the last six months for a whole series of Measures to be put through before the election. What was the answer from the Leader of the House on every occasion? "No Parliamentary time." Yet the Home Secretary suggests that a Bill was introduced which was not an emergency Bill at all, and which would have taken Parliamentary time that was needed for urgent Measures. He proves too much. It was assumed by the Government that the legal position had become sufficiently obscure, sufficiently difficult, for a Bill to be passed arming the Government with the necessary economic controls to carry over the transition to peace. But, frivolously, as far as we are concerned, the Government scrapped the Bill which had been introduced, and brought in the present Measure, without asking whether we were prepared to provide facilities for carrying into law the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend in the last Government. It seems to me that the intention behind the present manoeuvre, which will


be clear to the whole country, is indicative of what we are to have from this Government. Hon. Members opposite, howled at every day by the yellow Press, advised by the owners of the yellow Press who howl at them, are trying as far as they can to remove all those controls upon which the population of this country depend to protect them from the most merciless and rapacious profiteering. They are trying to do it with all the Parliamentary duplicity of a century of unscrupulous government. But each time they try these tricks they are going to be shown up, so that the British people can see what they are. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) took to himself a great deal of credit. That is characteristic of the Tory Reform Committee. It always picks up others people's ideas, bowdlerises them, and then claims to be the father. My hon. Friend must be in course of continual eruption.

Mr. Molson: Did not Bowdler purify the text?

Mr. Bevan: He altered it. I am within the recollection of the House in saying that the first time a suggestion was made that what is now called the Watchdog Committee should be appointed, through which all the suggested Orders and Regulations should pass, it was made from this side of the House. A year later my hon. Friend picked up a suggestion of my own. It is true that we should have had little prospect of carrying it through the House unless it had been taken up by hon. Members opposite, because they had the majority. It took them a considerable time, however; and hon. Members will note that the Tory Reform Committee, and other Members of the party opposite, became interested in the necessity for Parliamentary control over controls only when we were nearing the position of having economic controls in the post-war period.
At no time in the early years of the war did any protest come from that side over these unnecessary controls by the Government. As the war was coming to a successful conclusion, they became more and more interested in seeing that the forms of economic organisation and control which had successfuly carried us through the war, should not be used for the purpose of economic reconstruction after the war. Their interest in Parliamentary democracy increased as the possibility of a rich financial harvest drew nearer

and nearer. On the other hand, we on this side of the House were anxious, as my right hon. Friend has said, to preserve full Parliamentary rights over the exercise of these powers. The reason why we are anxious for that is that only by the exercise of full Parliamentary rights can we see that the economic controls are used in the interest of the people as a whole. We should be able easily to afford all the Parliamentary publicity that could be brought to bear, because we know that we can justify the use of those Parliamentary controls in every instance.
If the Bill which was introduced were discussed and proceeded with it would give us an opportunity of finding out what is in the mind of the Government. I presume that if they were moving it they would tell us what forms of economic control they were going to use, what plans they had with regard to the various priorities. They have been absolved from making any such explanations. They get these general umbrella powers. They can take them up and put them down. We have no way of determining what plans they have in mind. We had an instance at Question Time to-day.
I hope that the country will recognise what is happening in the House at present. The Government are deliberately stripping themselves, under the guise of arming themselves, of all those powers that are necessary to protect ordinary men and women from a scarcity market, to protect the returned soldier from the profiteers, who are looking lustfully at the gratuities in his pockets when he comes back, who realise that there is now assembling in this country a profiteers' paradise, with a vast scarcity of goods of all sorts, which people are hungry for, which the ex-Service man has been dreaming about, and, accompanying that scarcity, for almost the only occasion in my lifetime, money in the pockets of the poor people. With the poor people having spending power and scarcity existing, with spending power unloading itself on the market and prices rocketing up, in a few years that spending power can be transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich. That has been behind all manoeuvres of this sort, because hon. Members opposite dare not stand up to their paymasters.

5.58 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: This matter has been so thoroughly dealt


with by my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is not necessary for me to add many words, but I would like to point out that what we are dealing with are really two separate things. First, we are dealing with exceptional powers that are required to continue the war against Japan. Nobody questions that these powers have to be continued in the Government, and we have given our pledge that we will do everything we can to give the fullest support for that war against Japan. But there is quite another question. That is, the use of special powers during the transitional period, and perhaps even beyond it, not relating to war matters at all, but relating to matters of civilian requirements and matters of peace. The last Government had to face the question—as the emergency powers were running out in August—of what steps they proposed to take in order to deal with these two problems—firstly, the continuance of the war powers, and, secondly, the gaining of the civil powers. That Government came to the conclusion, which is incorporated in the Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) to the House, that it was necessary, indeed, essential, that a proper definition of these civil powers, if I may so call them, should be presented to the House and approved by them. At the same time, of course, it would have been necessary to continue some of the exceptional war powers, but many of them could have been done away with, since the centre of the war had moved to the Far East from Europe.
The primary object of that Bill was to enable the Government to get on with certain very urgent and essential matters of post-war planning—and, when I use the term post-war planning, I mean planning post-European war, because everyone admits now that we are, owing to the termination of the war in Europe, turning a certain amount of our energies towards making good the civilian deficits from which we have suffered as a result of the war. It is also realised that it is extremely urgent that this should be done as rapidly as possible, because on it depend, not only the future of our industries and export trade, but the immediate future of our fighting men when they are demobilised. It was for that purpose—in order to provide the Government with that necessary instrument for

the urgent planning for these immediate civilian needs—that it was decided, of course, with the advice of the Law Officers and all the rest of it, that this Bill was necessary. It was not introduced for fun, or because it was a hobby of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney. It was introduced as a decision of the Government, because it was necessary, and it was necessary in order that the country might be able to make proper provision for urgent matters.
Apparently, the necessity has disappeared, the urgency has gone, and the question debated was whether an Address to the King would be sufficient. Of course, as anybody can imagine, that matter must have been brought up, and the question must have been asked, "Will it not be enough to continue, as we have done year by year, the emergency powers for another 12 months? Why have a Bill at all? Why not have an Address? "But the conclusion come to was that it was not enough. Why was that conclusion arrived at? The conclusion was arrived at, in my view, because there were doubts whether, by the continuance of the Emergency Powers Act, addressed primarily to war purposes, the Government would be able to do those things urgently required for the civilian needs of the population. Obviously, there must be some limit to the use of the Defence of the Realm Act.
Let me take what is, perhaps, an absurd case, in order to illustrate it. Suppose this Government had adopted the idea of Prohibition. I am not going to insult them by suggesting they have done so, but supposing they had, and had come along and said, "We will impose Prohibition on the country; it has nothing to do with the war; it is just because we think it would be a good idea," and it the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) happened to be in it, it would have been her inspiration. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he could have used those powers to impose Prohibition on the country? I suggest that no court could conceivably have upheld such an interpretation. Obviously, there is some limit to the powers, and on the question of where exactly that limit lies, I could engage for many days in a very interesting argument in another place with any right hon. Gentleman. But I do not propose to trouble the House with


any such legal arguments as that. The Home Secretary, indeed, suggested that there was some limit, because he said the time would come when, from the strictly legal point of view, doubt would arise how far these Regulations could continue. There is a limit. The time will come. When will it come? As regards some of the matters, has not the time come now—things which, professedly, are not necessary for war purposes?
Of course there must be a doubt, and it was just exactly that sort of doubt that induced the Government, with a very heavy programme, as has been pointed out already, of I know not how many Bills before the House, to add this essential Bill to that list. That being so, we naturally ask ourselves, as I think we are entitled to do—Why the change? Why has it suddenly been discovered that these powers that were required for civil planning, and particularly in connection with housing and so on, are no longer required? The answer, I think, is perfectly clear. It is that this Government do not believe in planning. That is the answer. Controls, so-called, are simply part of planning. They relate to the way in which, when a plan has been worked out of priorities as to what the people need most in urgent circumstances, you allocate civil supplies after the war and determine whether you are going to allow luxury supplies to be made at the expense of utility supplies, and matters of that kind. Controls are the means by which you order such a plan. This has been the whole purpose and object of controls throughout the war. It is clear that this gesture by the Government is to convince their own supporters, inside and outside this House, that they are going to carry out what was included as one of the 12 points of the Conservative Party's programme—to do away with controls as rapidly as possible—and they are not proposing to introduce any element of planning whatsoever into our post-war civil life. They are, in fact, repeating precisely what happened at the end of the last war. Just as in those days, "homes fit for heroes" were promised to all the people and no steps taken to implement the promise, so they will be promised again. Now it is being made perfectly clear by the caretaker Government that they do not propose to implement the promise by action.
One other question which one asks is this—Why an extension by Bill for six

months? The usual practice has been an Address and extension for 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman said clearly that you could not get an extension by Address except for 12 months, and that, therefore, we had to have a Bill for six months. Why for six months? Is it be cause the Japanese war is going to be over in six months? No. It is because this Government know that their term will be up in July, and this is a device to embarrass their successors and nothing else. There really is no other possible reason because—

Mr. Colegate: rose—

Sir S. Cripps: I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to what I am going to say. If there is no danger of another Government superseding this Government within the next 12 months, and if this Government, therefore, have complete control whether they operate or not any of the powers under this Act, there is no reason whatever why it should not be continued for 12 months. It is completely in the control of the Government to use the powers or not as they like. The very procedure of an Address to the King can be adopted for their continuance. The procedure first laid down is enough in itself. Why, then, in these circumstances, adopt an exceptional procedure of bringing a Bill before the House to continue the powers only for six months?

Mr. Colegate: I can think of the answer. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, if the extension of all kinds of control is so popular, he will have the delightful task, at the end of six months, of bringing in these controls.

Sir S. Cripps: I am obliged, because the hon. Member does think that this Government will not last, which is exactly the point that I put.

Mr. Colegate: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to listen to him. I ask him to listen to me. I used the word "if" and it is a very big "if."

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is no good answering an argument with an "if." If not, what happens?

Mr. Colegate: Well, that will be your funeral.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are only two possibilities—either the present Government


go on, or another Government will take their place. He will surely agree with that?

Mr. Colegate: indicated assent.

Sir S. Cripps: If the present Government go on, there is no danger at all, because they will control the whole proceedings. The only possible cause for altering the whole method is because they cannot be sure of continuing. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cannot appreciate that argument, I am not going to trouble the House by repeating it. Let me, in conclusion, say this. So far as we are concerned, we want these powers, to plan for civilian production in this very urgent time of shortages and difficulties, because we believe them to be of cardinal importance, and that everything possible should be done to see, particularly, that the fighting men are provided with those goods that they need when they return to this country on demobilisation. This Bill is failing to provide for those steps which it was agreed by all the Members of the National Government were necessary for that very purpose, and it is, therefore, a notice that this Government, at least, are not going to try to provide homes fit for heroes.

6.14 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): To all the great figures in my own profession, various stories attach themselves, as time goes on, and one of these, which has hung about the mantle of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me, goes somewhat as follows. It is related that he had a very poor case to argue on appeal. Somebody said to him, "But really, how can you deal with that piece of evidence? It is quite fatal to the case which you will have to present." And according to this mythical story, my right hon. and learned Friend said, "There is no difficulty about that. I will read it straight through once; I will repeat it again, with comments on each sentence; I will repeat it again the third time contrasted with the evidence of the other side. And when my learned friend on the other side gets up to reply on it the court will say, 'Really, we have heard enough of that; we cannot go into that point again.' " I really felt, as my right hon. and learned Friend began to labour, for the third

time of asking, the same alleged legal difficulty—which has never existed in the minds of any court of law which has had to deal with this point—that he was getting back into the realms of that story.
I do ask both my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who gave us the first reading of this alleged difficulty, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to consider the clear and established position, which the courts have said, again and again, to be the position, in dealing with these Emergency Defence powers. They have said that the question of these prerequisites, of whether the Order in Council is necessary or expedient for public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, the efficient prosecution of the war, and the maintaining of supplies and services, is a matter for the Minister of the Crown to decide, and the courts will not interfere. They have confessed themselves unable to interfere because, as the Master of the Rolls so pertinently said, "We are here to administer justice; we are not here to run the affairs of the country. That is for His Majesty's Ministers." It is for the Minister to decide and, when he has decided, the courts will not interfere with that decision. The only ground on which they will interfere—and this has been declared again and again—is if the Order is used in bad faith, and the example which my right hon. and learned Friend gave is a perfectly good and clear example of bad faith. [Interruption.] I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to develop my case. I noted his words carefully. He said that supposing a Minister desired to introduce Prohibition by Order in Council he might say "I am not doing this for any purpose of the war. I am doing it on the private and individual desires or judgment of my own mind."

Sir S. Cripps: Or the Government.

The Attorney-General: Or the Government. If you can get a confession made by the person who is making the Order that he is not doing it for one of these purposes, that is a confession that he is using his powers in toad faith, and the courts will interfere.

Sir S. Cripps: I was using the illustration in order to show that certain matters admittedly lie outside the scope of the


Act, and I understand that the learned Attorney-General agrees with me.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend cannot ride off on that. I am putting an argument and putting it quite fairly. It has been argued in every case in the courts that the only ground on which the courts will interfere is that of bad faith. I am using my right hon. and learned Friend's example as an example of bad faith, and one which, therefore, comes under a clear and established legal rule. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot say—and this is the whole pith of this triply-repeated argument—that there is a verge of legal difficulty. I was most interested when my right hon. and learned Friend said that this would be a most interesting point for him and—he was good enough to look towards me—myself to spend some days arguing in another place. I would like to remind him—because he has put a certain amount of legal matter into his argument—that the last person who tried to get this point argued in another place could not get it argued, because the other place thought it was so clear it did not deserve further consideration from them. That is the legal difficulty to which these points have been directed, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to go on to say that when the appropriate Minister came to the Law Officers, so hazy and difficult would be the question, that he would receive the advice that it was dangerous to proceed. I am not going to say anything further about the value of the advice because, of course, it would come from me, but I do say—and I think the House will accept this—that there would be no doubt whatsoever about the clarity of the advice.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not quite understand of what advice the learned Attorney-General is speaking. Supposing a Minister called on him and said, "I cannot use control for any purpose connected with the war at all but for some other purpose altogether outside," he would, I presume, advise him that he could not do it.

The Attorney-General: I made the point perfectly clear. If you are going to say that it is outside the prerequisites, then it can be interfered with, because that would, in my view, be bad faith. It would be using the Act for a purpose for which it was not designed. There is no doubt between us at all. But that brings me

to the second point, which again, is perfectly clear—that these prerequisites are clearly wide enough to deal with every purpose which has been mentioned in the Debate to-day. My right hon. and learned Friend need not be afraid that I shall not follow his argument. I shall deal with his points and then their value can be assessed.
It would be fair to say that the main points which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney developed and which were developed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and by my right hon. and learned Friend were connected with housing, furnishing and essential supplies of that kind. The Act says, and the words which we are considering are,
for maintaining supplies and services essential for the life of the community.
There are two points that would have to be considered. First, Was it an esential supply or service? I think there would be little doubt that everyone would agree that it was. I understood that my right hon. and learned Friend was in some difficulty as to how long these powers could be used; how long you could say, viewing it generally that the powers were being used with propriety within the purview of the Act, and whether the point might come when they were not related to the emergency at all. But what is beyond peradventure is that so long as your shortage has been due to war causes, when you are dealing with the unwinding of matters directly occasioned by the war, and when you are, in point of time, within a period of one month to six months—because that is the period with which we are dealing here—after the close of the war, then I suggest to the House that no one could suggest that these powers were, either in the very broad sense apart from any strict legal sense, with the special position that the Minister has, being used ultra vires in law or beyond the purview of the Act in general opinion. I do not want to confine the remarks I have to make to the House to the legal position, but I did think it was right, having been challenged on that matter, and especially by my right hon. and learned Friend, that I should state, with such clarity and emphasis as I can command, the legal position and the way the courts have interpreted it.
I want to deal with the wider point which has been developed by all the


speakers this evening. I do not think that any of us would complain of the airing that they have given to speeches of which, if we do not have the pleasure of hearing them, we shall probably see reported pretty constantly during the next five weeks. It is always pleasant to get a private view or a private hearing of such matters, and it is, incidentally, an advantage that the answers become even more clear. But I think it is important that one should deal with the suggestion tha the Government are, for some reason which has been so dubiously explained, not ready to use those powers. I want to repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in commending this Bill to the House. The basis on which the Government desire to work is that the policy of fair shares in goods, services and commodities should be continued during this time. Nobody has said, and nobody can with any reason make the suggestion, that the Orders that have been made and that can be made under this Act do not give ample power to provide for these fair shares. I do not know how often my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol has had to consider Defence Regulation 55. I shudder to think how many times I have had to consider it and its various offshoots during the last three years, but that gives the most complete, wide and overwhelming powers for prolonging the regulation of distribution, prices, marketing and everything that one could possibly imagine in the case of the supply of goods. Therefore, if on that double basis these powers are amply sufficient, and the Government intend to use them on the basis of fair shares, I fail to see where the difficulty arises.
I think one must say a word about the-portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. It is that portion the form of which was that of the right hon. Gentleman but the voice was that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). In a tone shaking with horror, the right hon. Gentleman contemplated six months without subsidiary Orders being laid on the Table of the House. For one moment I was really in doubt whether I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman or somebody else. I will not embarrass him by giving exact quotations from many of his own

speeches but let me put before him the various reasons which he has so often given with such persuasion to this House on that point. After all, we are here dealing with a limited period and I quite agree that during that period two of the six safeguards which he and I have emphasised so often on delegated legislation, are not with us. In other words, we have not got the renewal which we have in the ordinary way after a period of 12 months but, during that period, we still have the Prayer for the first Regulation—and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Prayer on the primary Regulation is often based on the number and variety of subsidiary Orders which could be made under it; we still have the Debate on the Address, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that he and I, on Amendments to the Address, have had to consider these matters; we still have, fortunately, Questions; we still have the Adjournment. In fact, all these matters which the right hon. Gentleman and I have rightly said—because I think we both believe it—have enabled this House to keep control, and enabled Parliament to show that it can control delegated legislation, and have justified to the right hon. Gentleman and to myself the use of delegated legislation under Parliamentary control. These things are still with us, and the only matter with which the right hon. Gentleman is left is the question of the subsidiary Order which, for a period of six months—and as he has pointed out, that period includes two holiday months—cannot be used.
I should like to deal with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). He rightly said that he thought there should be a review of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts procedure. Nobody disagrees with that; in fact my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was at great pains to point out that he was acting under the policy adumbrated toy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, namely that there ought to be a review of this procedure at an early date after the end of the European war. The only difference was whether that review could more usefully take place at the moment or in the new Parliament, and I gladly accede to my hon. Friend's request to say that, within the limited time, the provision for such a review will be given. However, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw


Vale (Mr. A. Be van) has, apart from dealing with the more general attitude, also raised this point about the question of delay and I think that he supplied the answer to it. He said that if we had had the Bill in the form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, the Government would have had to say what were the powers they were going to use, and for what purposes they were going to use the powers.
We have had, as far as I am concerned, a most pleasant Debate on the limited subject before us, but who can imagine the variety of subjects, the different points of view, the many reasonable suggestions from all angles and all quarters of the House which we should have felt bound to bring up had we been discussing that much wider subject of the use to which the powers should be put and the purposes most necessary for their use at the time. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale has provided the strongest argument, I suggest, to the House for the course which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken of preserving the status quo, of leaving the Government with these full powers, and postponing the review until the new Parliament is in existence, and can bring to the discussion of this subject the variety of experience and the new strength which the immediate post-election position always gives.
Believe me, it is with the greatest good temper that I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. But I urge the House that on the first point—the supposed legal difficulty—the most superficial consideration of the cases decided during the war will show that it does not exist. On the second point, no one has suggested or can suggest, that the powers under this Act are not capable of dealing with all the difficulties which have been raised. On the question of time, surely the proper time to consider the problem of review, to consider what exactly is necessary to amend not only our procedure but to amend the pre-requisites on which the procedure can be put into operation, is when the Election has taken place and we are back here after that time. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I do not apologise to the House for endeavouring to continue the discussion on this footling Measure. I believe it has now been

revealed by the Attorney-General that the Government have no intention of facing up to the arguments on fundamental matters that divide us, as presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I want to ask the Attorney-General why he did not deal with the questions which arise on the arguments used from this side as to why the Government dropped the major Bill upon which the Coalition actually agreed on which there was unanimity, as indicated by the right hon. Member for South Hackney. So far as that argument is concerned, the point which comes out here nakedly is that the Tory Government and the Tory Party have made up their minds that they will not guarantee any economic security for the masses of the people of this country when the men come home. As far as goods and services, furniture and homesteads are concerned, the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) struck a high note a few weeks ago. I would remind him of his speech in which he told us that in the matter of bricks and tiles and building material, cartels and monopolies have pushed up the prices. Cartels and monopolies have at least imposed and fixed costs which bear no real relationship to proper prices, and there is no real reason at all why some of the costs should be there. That was the hon. Member's own argument and there can be no doubt about it that this Measure cannot be separated from that argument which he used weeks ago.
I believe the country has something to learn from the reasons given for introducing this footling little Measure as distinct from the original Bill. If the original Bill had been presented to the House, it could have had a Second Reading, it could have reached the Statute Book inside the next two or three days and what would it have done? It would have guaranteed—at least so far as directing materials are concerned—equating and controlling prices, and controlling commodities, so that those who are to return home and cannot help themselves would, at least, have had a square deal such as the Coalition Government were determined to give it a fortnight ago. However the Tory Party now say, "We continue these little emergency powers, believing that we shall have done enough because there is an Election coming in


between." I suggest to the Attorney-General that this Measure does not deal with issues which guarantee some form of control relating to furniture to fit into the homes of the people. It does not guarantee any kind of economic control at all—in fact, the Government can dismiss and forget all about the particular items in the Emergency Powers Act if they do not want to use them.

Mr. Molson: Surely that is covered by the words:
for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community"?

Mr. E. Walkden: Yes, "for maintaining," but, if they care to set them aside, the difference is this. The emergency did exist, but when you are dealing with a longer view, you say you have no intention of putting before the people a policy dealing with economic issues. You say that the emergency continues. But, when we come to fundamental changes like the men coming home, let us see what has been done. We have guaranteed to a soldier that he will have his leave; we have guaranteed to him that he will have roughly £150in his pocket; we have guaranteed to him that he will have a civilian suit—indeed, we have set aside 48,000,000 yards of material to guarantee that. We have guaranteed all that, but the Government have left naked and unashamed all the power for racketeering in all the other things he needs in the hands of big business by determining that the Coalition Bill should be set aside. That is the challenge we make; that is what we believe. I maintain that all the uncertainty of the future is predetermined by the Tory Party, for deliberate reasons. We believe that the Measure agreed to before VE-Day was a good and necessary Measure, and one which should have come before Parliament. We should have planned what the hon. Member for The High Peak was demanding recently, that we would guarantee everything that the men in the Forces needed when they came home, in the same way as we have guaranteed them their leave, clothes and other things.
We should tell the country truthfully why this position has arisen. We should say why the Tory Party have withdrawn one Bill and brought in another. It is because they do not want to put before the country, at the Election, their inten-

tions with regard to control, other than to get rid of them as soon as possible. They do no intend to control the goods that are needed for the masses of our people, the furniture, pots and pans and all those things which we had to chase after the last war. They have no intention of controlling bricks and other material with which to make homes because they believe in a "free for all" that free enterprise should have full rein. As soon as they can lay their hands on the money paid out in gratuities it is the intention of the task masters of the Tory Party to see that there is a free for all. Here is a real division between us, and the country must know that this apology which is now being presented is wasting the time of the House. The young lads in the Tory Party have been told to keep quiet, not because there is not something to argue about, but because they have been told that if they do not, we on this side of the House will score off them and the country will thereby find out that this is all a trick.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: What an imagination.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Col. Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very speedy way in which we have been getting through legislation this week. This Bill is one instance; we had also an amazing experience on Tuesday in connection with the Scottish Education Bill, and I hope that when the new Government come into power, if they are to be the same as the old Government, they will deal with the land and coal questions in the same speedy way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY SERVICE (HIGHER AGE GROUPS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

6.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: After the hustings performance from the other side, a few moments ago, I want to raise a matter which is of some importance to people in the Services at the moment, and which relates to a decision of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth(Mr. E. Bevin) who was, at the time the decision was taken, the Minister responsible as Minister of Labour. It relates to a decision which he made not to call into the Forces people now over the age of 30. I raise the question in all friendliness to the present Minister only for the purpose of hoping that he will be able to throw light on this matter, and will, thereby, be able to give some satisfaction to the members of the Forces who are concerned.
The Question I put to the then Minister of Labour on this matter was whether he had any information as to the numbers of men who would foe called into the Forces if the age limit were raised to 40 instead of being reduced to 30. The right hon. Gentleman, said he had no in formation at all, and I considered that rather surprising, because it is scarcely credible that a decision of that kind would have been taken by him without his being in the possession of the information—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): My right hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. He said that the information was not available, but that the number involved was small.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: If my hon. Friend will turn to the second Question

I asked on the same day, relating to this matter, he will find that the right hon. Gentleman's answer was that he had no information, and was unable to give any figures. There can be little doubt that this decision, unless adequately explained, will cause dissatisfaction to those who are now serving. They cannot help feeling that if men over 30 are not called into the Forces their service must automatically be prolonged. The only answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth has given about this matter is merely to say that that is not so. Well, that is not good enough for the troops; it is not good enough to say that that is not so, and to state that as a bald fact without some adequate explanation. I would like to know whether this decision was taken in full consultation with each of the Service Departments concerned, because it follows that a number of men will be required to be kept in the Army during the next few years, particularly, for instance, in the Army of Occupation in Germany. Such explanation as the then Minister of Labour attempted to give was that there was not time to train men over 30 for them to be used in the Army. I suppose it would be right to admit that probably battle training would take some time, but battle-trained soldiers are not the ones we want for occupation in Europe. There are clerical and technical appointments which could be well filled after a very short period of training. There are men who could be brought home from Germany if their places were taken by men who have not been in the Army at any stage of the war.
There are men who were 24 or 25 when the war started who are now in their thirties and who have been in reserved occupations. That reservation has now come to an end, with the result that they have not been in the Forces at all while other men who have been serving for a long period are retained because these men are not called up to take their places. If there is an adequate explanation I shall be only too glad to hear it. There can be only two possibilities with regard to the position of the present Minister in relation to this question. Either he agrees with the decision which was taken before, in which case I have no doubt that he will welcome an opportunity of explaining to the troops why the decision was taken, or, if he disagrees with it, I have equally


no doubt that he will not hesitate to reverse it.
I do not think this matter ought to be complicated by the question of training. It seems to be a simple mathematical fact that if you fix the size of your Army of Occupation and you can bring in, say, 20,000 at one end you can let 20,000 out at the other. That is the simple way in which the soldier looks at it. He is unable to understand why men of 30 to 40 who might provide the 20,000 cannot be compelled to do so. Incidentally, I met a sailor the other day who had some strong language to use about the late Minister of Labour. He said that the question of training was rubbish or, rather, he did not use the word "rubbish," but I gathered he considered that it was not a sound argument. He told me that his training as a naval rating took precisely 10 weeks, after which he was at sea on convoy duty. This is perhaps not unimportant, because though no figures are yet available there is a strong rumour in the Navy that only the low age groups are to be released this year. There is a suggestion that men in the early twenties groups might be released from the Army whereas only about one to seven groups of those in the Navy have any prospect of being released this year.
Serving men cannot help feeling that if men between 30 and 40 were brought in and had 10 weeks' training there would be a prospect of more age groups being released this year. It seems a simple question of the more you get in the more you can let out. There are also certain specialist aspects of this question with which I would like my hon. Friend to deal. For instance, in the case of the medical profession, there appears to be some dissatisfaction among those doctors who are serving in the Army and whose practices have virtually disappeared.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is turning his back on me. I would remind him that he is supposed to address me.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I beg your pardon, Sir. I apologise humbly for having made that mistake. A number of doctors are feeling a little dissatisfied with their present situation. Many of them have lost their practices, and they have been serving perhaps five or six years in

the Royal Army Medical Corps. It is true that those doctors who have been in civilian practices have been mainly very much overworked and they have rendered invaluable services, but there are different conditions for the men who have to serve perhaps in the Middle East and those who are living at home. Many of the doctors in the Services feel that the time has come when there should be a substitution and that doctors between the ages of 30 and 40 should be called into the Services so that those who have been in the Medical Corps for the last five years could be allowed to come out and resume private practice.
There is very much the same problem in the legal world. I suppose that at no time during the war have legally qualified people been more required in the Army than they will be in the immediate post-war period, and yet a decision has been taken which prevents those who have not been serving from being called up now to take the places of those who have been serving. The problem is much the same from whatever point of view one looks at it. It comes down to the simple question whether or not it is right that men who are comparatively young, in the early 30's, should be protected from serving while others of the same age are required to continue serving. I do not put this matter to my hon. Friend in any sense of hostility. If he can give a satisfactory explanation, nobody will be more pleased than I shall be. I hope also that my hon. Friend will be able to give an explanation which will satisfy those who are affected.

7.3 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe). There must be very few hon Members who have not received numerous letters from men serving overseas complaining of the fact that the call-up to the Services has now been limited to those under30 years of age. I rise only to ask why it is that we have not been given the information before. Can my hon. Friend now tell us what numbers are involved? Now that the war with Germany is over, security considerations obviously are not of such great importance as they were before. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to-day gave


very detailed figures about men in different categories. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell us not only what is the over-all figure for those between 30 and 40 who might have been called up but for the new regulations, in order that we may satisfy our constituents that the number is very small, but also what those men are in broad categories. My hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned doctors. Can we now be told, roughly, how many doctors and others are in that class, so that we can satisfy our constituents when they put individual complaints to us?

7.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) for raising this matter, because I know there has been a certain misunderstanding in the minds of a great number of men in the Forces, especially those serving overseas. My late chief, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. Bevin), endeavoured, in answers to a series of Questions put by my hon. and gallant Friend and other hon. Members, to deal with the points that have been raised, but, of course, these matters are not always easy to handle by the simple method of question and answer. My hon. and gallant Friend made great play with the point that this surely must be a question of simple mathematics. It is nothing of the sort. Many other considerations arise. I want to assure him at once that no step of this description would be taken by the Ministry of Labour without the fullest consultation with and approval of the three Services.
The considerations that arise may be divided into two classes. In the first place, there is in the minds of the troops the question, Does the decision not to call up men over 30 militate against the possibility of an early release under the demobilisation scheme? In a recent Debate my right hon. Friend and I gave the most categoric assurances that the fact that men over 30 are not now being called up has no effect whatever upon the pace of the release scheme. The pace of release does not depend upon the numbers of entrants, but upon mechanics. The Government are releasing men from the Forces as speedily as the mechanics of the situation and the demands of the war in the Far East make possible. The over-

riding consideration is transport. There are other considerations, such as the number of men who can be handled at the demobilisation centres, fitting them out with suits, the issue of forms, and the proper coaching of the men and women going through the demobilisation centres in what they have to do. These are real considerations when men and women are going through the centres by the thousand. The pace of release depends not upon the calling up of men over 30, but upon how fast we can bring men home, with the transport available, and how fast we can handle them when they do come home. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will take it from me that, as the late Minister categorically stated, this decision will have no effect whatever on the pace of release in Class A under the release scheme. Class B does not arise in this connection, because it depends upon certain vital needs here.
The second point that should be considered is this: Are we entitled to call up for the Forces men whom the Forces do not need, simply for the sake of calling them up? I do not believe we are. I do not believe Parliament entrusted the operation of the National Service Act to the Government for frivolous reasons; it entrusted it to the Government for the purpose of calling up for the Armed Forces men whom the Armed Forces need for the prosecution of the war and the proper use of military force. The position depends upon the allocations of manpower made to the Forces. The present situation is that there are more than enough men under 30 to meet the allocations which are laid down for entry into the Armed Forces. Therefore, if we were to continue to call up men over 30, it would only mean that young men under 30 would be left in civilian occupations. I do not believe that would be right. If there is a choice between men over 30 and men under 30, I believe it is the men under 30 who should go.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked why we would not give the figures of those over 30 who might be available. The answer is clear. Until we come to consider the individuals, we cannot tell whether they are available or not, because: they have rights of postponement on hardship grounds and of deferment on grounds of occupation. Therefore, it is quite impossible at any one moment to state cate-


gorically how many men in an age group are available for call-up, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the best guesses we can make in the Department are that the numbers of men over 30 available for call-up are very small indeed. Who are the men, apart from those in the low medical category? In the main they are men who have had postponement on grounds of personal hardship; it may be they are the owners, occupiers or managers of small businesses or shops which would otherwise be closed down. No one in the House at the present time would wish those men to be called up while younger men are available. Others have been deferred, many against their own wishes, by the Ministry of Labour, because of the vital importance of the work which they have been doing during the war, and probably many of them are still doing jobs of the highest importance. Therefore, I suggest that the decision which my right hon. Friend came to as long ago as. last Autumn, when he reduced the age of call-up from 40 to 35, and again this Spring when he reduced it further to 30, was a right decision in the circumstances. We still propose to go on calling up young men under 30 as they reach the call-up age, or as they become redundant, or lose their reservation, if they are in reserved occupations, to meet fully the proper allocations to the Armed Forces.
I know there has been doubt in the minds of men in the Services, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that if one talks about the matter from the point of view of simple mathematics, it does sound normal to say that the more men you put in at one end the more you will get out at the other; but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that is not so. As I have said, the pace of release from the Armed Forces depends upon the mechanical possibilities of transport and handling. The allocation of men to the Forces in the future can be met by men under 30, and it would not be right to call up men over 30 while there are young men under 30 available.
My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the point that the late Minister, in answering Questions, brought in the matter of training The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) also referred to that matter. The point at issue really is this. These young men are being called up

primarily for the war in the Far East, and if there is only a certain number of men allocated, it is better to call up the young ones who will be available either for the war in the Far East, if they are needed when trained, or for the occupation in Germany, whichever is more desirable in the military situation then prevailing, rather than to call up men who, because of their age, would be available only for the occupation in Germany. With those assurances, that it does not mate the slightest difference to the time the men will be released from the Forces and that we have plenty of young men under 30 whom we intend to go on calling up to meet the proper allocation to the Armed Forces, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied.

Mr. Bowles: I find a certain amount of anxiety among people in the Air Force and the Army on the question of release from the Forces. Is there any truth in the belief that medical orderlies and staffs attached to doctors in the two Services are likely to be deferred beyond their age group?

Mr. McCorquodale: That is a detailed point about which I could not give any categorical assurance now. I must have the fullest consultation with the authorities in the Services about it, but from my information at present, as far as is physically possible having regard to the paramount needs of the Forces, release under age and length of service will apply to all in the Forces, and doctors and lawyers and medical orderlies and others, will all have their opportunities of release when the turn of their age and length of service group comes. In the Navy and Air Force certain trades are released at a different time. Certain trades in the Air Force groups will be passed through quicker than others, and to that extent it is not possible to meet the Air Force point of view.

Mr. Bowles: Is there any likelihood that doctors and their staffs will be retained to examine men medically on their way out of the Service?

Mr. McCorquodale: Doctors will certainly have to examine these men carefully on their way out of the Services. I hope the military will find enough doctors in their ranks to do that without calling on additional doctors or holding up the release of doctors. But it would not be right for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's answer on Wednesday.

Orders of the Day — DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT)

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Unexpectedly I find myself in the fortunate position of gaining possession of the House. I apologise to the Secretary of State for War for having been forced into the position of giving him such little notice, and I wish to exonerate him entirely from not being present, at least at the opening of the Debate, but the matter is of such great importance, and in my view involves such a principle, and is so devoid of party politics, that any Member of the Government could answer and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be here docs not seem to me to be as important as it might have been on other occasions.
The question to which I wish to draw attention relates to some matters that I raised on 8th May with regard to young soldiers, wounded, and whilst in hospital contributing to the upkeep of their mothers, being discharged before they had even left hospital for the first time, because it had been decided that they were no longer of any use for the Armed Forces. That is treatment which should not be meted out to any man or woman who has engaged in the dangers of war in the defence of the country. It is a meanness which ought to be shown up and put right at the earliest possible moment. I perfectly understand that you cannot go on keeping people in the Army when they arc quite incapable of serving, but these are cases where the men have not been in hospital for long. They have been discharged and put on less attractive terms while in hospital for the first time. I have cases where men in one Service, with similar wounds, are kept on, although it is known that they will no longer be of any use, whereas men m the Army are discharged. If a man goes to the front and risks life and limb and is fortunate enough to get out alive, though with something very much more severe than what we used to call a "blighty wound," surely it is our responsibility to see that he is maintained in hospital free of all charge until such time as he can be put on his feet and enabled to return home, though even then he may not be of much use as a contributor to the family budget.
In the Debate on the Army Estimates I listened to a very eloquent speech by one

of my hon. Friends appealing for fair treatment for wounded ex-soldiers and pleading that never again should we be allowed to see them trailing themselves along the gutters and appealing for money. I am sure the House intended that that should never be allowed to happen again. I am equally sure that that was the intention at the end of the last war. But unless we are constantly on the watch and paying attention to the matter, when the war has passed and people forget about it, unfortunately the men get forgotten too. I had arranged to raise the matter two nights ago but it was late and, by arrangement of the Secretary of State, it was put off until next week. But it happens that the day next week that I landed on is even worse than the night before last.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member will get publicity for his side of the case without my right hon. Friend having an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Stokes: I am hoping that I shall be able to talk long enough to enable the Secretary of State to toe here. It is not my intention to shut him out. My hope is that Members will shortly arrive from the smoking room to support me.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I understand that the Secretary of State cannot be here.

Mr. Stokes: He has his case prepared and any of his Under-Secretaries can make it for him. There is no difficulty on that score. At any rate, I will undertake to speak until 8 o'clock.

Mr. McCorquodale: In case there is any misunderstanding, my present advice is that the Secretary of State cannot be here to-night. He has an engagement which he cannot get out of, and the Government cannot promise that any representative of the War Office will be available. But I will certainly stay.

Mr. Stokes: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will do most noble work, but it seems to me very strange that the Government should have such little control over its Ministers as not to be able to get a representative of the Department to reply to a Debate. I do not take the view of some Ministers about the unimportance of Parliament. Presence in Parliament is more important than anything else, and comes first.

Mr. McCorquodale: I agree with the hon. Member, but it seems a little hard. A firm appointment was made for next week, and I do not think any condemnation can be placed on my right hon. Friend or on the Parliamentary Secretary because he is not here.

Mr. Stokes: It is the Noble Lord who is in trouble about this. I am not. I was assured at a quarter past seven that the Secretary of State would come but might not be here for an hour; I said I would go on and speak for quite a long time. I have done it before and shall probably do it again. My fear was that we should be left with no time in which to ventilate the matter, because of the Dissolution, and thus a very grave issue would never be dealt with at all. The only thing for a back bencher to do is to seize opportunities as they come and, if he does not do that, he is neglecting his job.
The matter concerns a young man, Private Connor, 10th Battalion Royal Berkshire. Regiment. He was in the Army for two years, spent 10 months in Italy, was wounded in the left leg near Cassino on 24th January, 1944. The wound is still open. He has been eight months in hospital. He was discharged on 21st September, 1944, with a 100 per cent, disability pension of £2 a week. Except for two months he has been in hospital ever since. He had to pay 19s. a week to the hospital and, on top of that, he was making an allowance of 14s. to his mother, so that he was left with 7s. That does not seem to me to be good enough. The second case is that of Private Fuller, 2nd Battalion West Sussex Regiment. He has been in hospital since October 12th, 1943, paralysed in both legs. He was discharged on 12th May, 1944, with a pension of £2. He is still in hospital, paying a contribution of 19s., reducing him to 21s.
He, again, is making a contribution of 14s. a week to his mother, leaving him with 7s. That does not seem to be the way in which we should treat these men. Another case is that of Sergeant R. Headington, of the King's Royal Regiment, with 2½ years' service. He was wounded 14th September, 1944, and is suffering from a compound fracture, resulting in the left leg being two inches shorter than the other. He has been in hospital since 1944 and is told that he will be discharged at any moment. As a sergeant he gets £3 3s. a week, out of

which he keeps his widowed mother. If he is discharged he gets £2, and if he is still in hospital he will be required to pay 195. a week.
Now that the Financial Secretary has arrived, may I say with all friendliness that I am glad to find myself in opposition to him on the first occasion on which he appears at the Treasury Box? I have examples, with which I shall be glad to furnish him, of people with similar wounds lying in beds alongside one another, the one belonging to the Navy and the other to the Army, the Navy man being kept on and not discharged, but the Army man being discharged and made to contribute to his upkeep while in hospital. It is particularly hard for men suffering from face wounds, which the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) describes as plastic cases. Anybody who knows about the healing of wounds knows that plastic treatment takes a very long time. The mere fact that a man is to have a false nose or cheek has an appalling nervous reaction on him, and if, on top of that, it is decided that he is no more use to the Service and he is cleared out before he is properly fitted up and able to go home it must have a deplorable reaction on his feelings. I do not believe it is a state of things this House would tolerate if it realised what was happening.
Not only is there this loss of pay, which in a way is the least important aspect of the matter, although very fundamental, but the fact that the man loses his uniform is important, and he loses all the amenities that go with it. I know that there are all sorts of organisations to come in and help him, but that means charity, which the man does not like. He ought to be kept, on full pay until he is in a position to be returned home and discharged from the Army. We ought not to be mean to these men who have suffered in the war, as so many hundreds of thousands of young men have. I suspect that there is a miserable Treasury minute and that the old dead hand of finance is trying to enforce economy, thus creating bitterness and unhappiness among a minority of people who have done so much for us. In view of the fearful odds which these fellows have had to meet on so many occasions, it ought to be the expressed view of this House that they should be kept in hospital on full pay without any


charge until such time as they are fit enough to be released. Our sentiment should be that for any contribution which can be made to them individually, the sky is the limit, and that even that is not high enough.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is doing a great public service in having this matter ventilated. The War Office do some things very slowly, and my experience in dealing with them indicates that, although they are slow in doing some things, when it comes to meting out unfair treatment and injustice to the soldier who has had the misfortune to receive wounds on the battlefield, they are in a tremendous hurry. I come into contact with men who have suffered from the attitude of the War Office, and I can only sum it up by saying that they are very parsimonious in their treatment of the unfortunate wounded soldier. I ask the Financial Secretary why there should be this differentiation between members of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I get many letters on this question from serving soldiers, but I have never yet had one from an airman or a member of the Navy; all my letters complain of the treatment meted out to soldiers. The War Office get the men on the cheap in the first instance, and they try to cheapen the process further as the men emerge again into civil life. When men have had the misfortune to sustain wounds on the battlefield, some of them so serious that they will never fully recover from them, it is essential that the War Office should be more humane in their treatment. The men remain in hospital for 56 days, and then they are discharged. Their pay is reduced and they are denied the ordinary amenities which go to other people.
I ask again why this treatment is meted out. Everybody in these days wants to be fair and square with people who have served in the Forces, and everybody I meet has a keen desire to see that fair play and justice are meted out to these men. We fail to find that attitude manifested by the War Office, however. I could quote case after case showing the heartbreaking circumstances of these unfortunate men, and I beg the Financial Secretary to have this matter re-examined in view of the different treatment which

is meted out to the men in the Air Force and the Navy, so that the treatment in all three Services is brought into line.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has raised this important matter. I gather that he had to do so at rather short notice, but, even so, it seems rather regrettable that only one back-bench Member of the Conservative Party could bother to be present to listen to the discussion of this serious human problem, which affects so many thousands of our wounded men. I want to make two points, both of which are, I think, relevant and have not been mentioned before. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who will reply for the War Office on his elevation, although I doubt whether he feels very comfortable at having to answer at such short notice on this rather tricky matter.
I should like to invite his attention to Hansard of 29th May, where, in a written answer in Cols. 64–66, the Undersecretary for Dominion Affairs was good enough to summarise for me, at some length, the treatment that is given by the various Dominions to wounded and sick Service-men. I think he will agree that broadly speaking, it shows that the practice of the Dominions is considerably more generous than our own. For instance, in Australia naval personnel suffering from disabilities which necessitate hospital treatment may, if not previously invalided from the Service, be borne on full pay for a period up to 18 months. That is rather more than we rise to. It is, of course, a naval matter, but I quote it by way of illustration. In New Zealand, which perhaps provides a clearer case,
where a medical board decides that a Service man requires further treatment at a public hospital or convalescent hospital or home, he is not finally disposed of but remains on full pay and allowances so long as he is under treatment.
That is in New Zealand, where there happens to be a Labour Government, but that is by the way.

Mr. Silverman: It is the core of the whole problem.

Mr. Driberg: Yes, but I do not see why even this predominantly Conservative caretaker Government, since it includes a few "men of good will," cannot show its


good will, in its dying days, by a gesture of generosity in this matter. It is added in respect of New Zealand that
a Service man undergoing treatment may elect to be discharged and take the war pension granted to him before the completion of treatment.
I mention that, as one of my two points, in the hope that the Government will consider the practice of the Dominions and see if they cannot raise our practice at least to the same level of generosity.
The other point I want to mention is with regard to men suffering from tuberculosis, because they also find themselves discharged from the Service while they are in the early stages of their treatment. I can see that this is a purely administrative matter, about which a purely administrative point of view has been taken, but I wonder if I can persuade the War Office to consider also the psychological aspect of it. Men suffering from tuberculosis get very depressed during the long stages of their disease; it is terribly lowering and depressing. It comes as a real shock and blow to them—I know because I have been to the tuberculosis sanatoria in my own county and I have talked to these men—suddenly to receive notice that, because they have been in sanatoria for a few months and may not recover their full health, the Army no longer want them and they are, so to speak, almost thrown on the scrap-heap. It has a bad psychological effect which may well contribute to the retarding of their recovery—because, I believe, tuberculosis is one of the diseases in which the mental state of the patient is of considerable importance.
Those are the only points I wish to make. I would suggest that to the slogan, "Fit for service, fit for pension," which I believe was originally used in this House by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), we should add the slogan, "Unfit for service, fit for full pay and allowances until fit to go home."

7.47 p.m.

Major F. W. Cundiff: It is not often that I find myself fn agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but on this occasion I would like to support his plea specially with regard to the question of plastic cases, and I speak with some little knowledge of this

subject. It is a fact that during this war plastic surgery has come very much more into its own, probably because of the amount of tank warfare which has resulted in a much higher percentage of wounds caused by burning. It is a fact that bad plastic cases may involve from six to 12 separate, perhaps major, operations lasting over a. period of three years. I think it is wrong that somebody suffering from very severe burns, and having to put up with these multiple plastic operations, should be discharged from the Army. I therefore plead with the Financial Secretary to see whether these men cannot be retained in the Service; and if it is possible to send them home for periods of two or three months before they return to hospital for a further operation, they should be granted their full pay and allowances and the retention of their uniform.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I join with my colleagues and with the hon. Member opposite in making a plea to the Financial Secretary to the War Office to give full consideration to this question. I know it has been before the House before by way of Question and answer, but hon. Members have never obtained satisfaction, and this is one occasion on which we can say that we are not satisfied with the answer and when we can give the subject more advertisement. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has done a great service in watching for an opportunity to bring the matter up.
As I understand it, the plea is this. First of all the Army do not treat their patients in the same way as patients in the Air Force and the Navy are treated. Ordinary treatment is given to the men in those two Services, but the men in the Army do not get the same kind of treatment. In the Army, a severely wounded man is sent to hospital, and before he has fully recovered or sent from hospital he is put on a pension and his Army pay ceases. There may be a reply to that charge, but for the life of me I cannot understand why a man, no matter to which Service he belongs, if he is severely wounded in carrying out his duties and has to be taken to hospital, should undergo that change of status. To all intents and purposes that man is doing a greater service to the country in hospital because it is due to what he has done that he is in hospital. Surely a


grateful country, which at all times is praising our men, as on V-Day and on other occasions, lauding them and saying what gallant men they are—and they certainly deserve it—should do everything possible to remedy this injustice. This is one of the occasions on which we feel that a grave injustice is being done to the serving men. Any man suffering from wounds, no matter on what part of his body, should be on full pay until such time as he is sent from hospital and they can do no more for him.
Then comes the question of the rate of pension which should be given to him. There can be nothing more disagreeable for the man than to think that while he is being treated for his wounds in hospital he is to lose his uniform and is to become an ordinary civilian. While he is in receipt of treatment in hospital and until such time as he is allowed to leave hospital he should be kept on full rate of pay all the time. Is that too much to ask? If this went to the country on the plain issue I do not think the Government dare stand up to it. There may be a reply. We want to know what it is, but if it is on the same lines as previous replies the country will not be satisfied. I have heard the Financial Secretary to the War Office 'before, and I believe that if he had not been in his present job to-night he would have been here ready to help us in our attack on the Government. Of coarse, it is a difficult position, and I cannot blame him to-night, but I hope that when he gets into conclave with the Secretary of State for War, and he is asked for his opinion, he will tell the Secretary of State for War that this is the kind of thing which must be altered. After all, when you take up a Government post you have to consider the feelings of the House.
If I may say so, the Financial Secretary's chief is rather a hard man. He may be an efficient man—I am not saying one word against his efficiency—but he is rather hard on the men who are under him. That is the case, at any rate, so far as financial benefits are concerned. Unfortunately, he cannot be here to-night. I wish he could be, because it is easier to talk to the head man than to the Financial Secretary, and I am sure that if he had been here, the hon. Member for Ipswich would not have pulled any of his punches. However, he is not here,

and the Financial Secretary is in hi place. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give us the answer that we want I hope he will tell his chief what we think about the position. An Election is impending, and if unfair treatment is to be meted out to tin Servicemen they will have something to say about it. Let us not forget that these men have given their all for the State, and should be treated fairly and justly.

7.55 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not quite agree with the last speaker about the absence of the chief. I was thinking that it might be a good opportunity for the new Financial Secretary to the War Office. Having won his spun on the back benches and been promoted to the Front Bench, he might wish to win his spurs in his new office, and I do not know of a more favourable opportunity for him to do so than this particular occasion. I only hope that he will prove to be capable of converting his chief to our point of view.
I think we have an overwhelming case. I had a personal contact with this question the other day, lending it some human interest. I live in a Glasgow tenement, and next door to me is a boy of 19 or 20 years of age. While serving in France he lost a limb. He has been discharged from hospital. It is a mistake, however, to think that because the War Office have discharged him from hospital, he is finished with hospital treatment. What has happened is this. The lad is now discharged, and at the end of a period of eight weeks he comes on to the allocated pension. The Minister of Pensions may hold that the loss of a leg is equal to a 60 per cent., 70 per cent, or 80 per cent. allocated pension. It means that this lad is to be maintained on that sum, although he has not reached anything like the condition when he can, even partly, enter into a competitive industry, not even in the lightest of light work. Pending his discharge he is handed over to the Minister of Pensions with one leg. He goes about until that leg hardens. It is like having false teeth. You have your teeth drawn but you do not go the following week to have the false set fitted. You have to wait. After a period of weeks or months the man goes back into another hospital, this time controlled by the Minister of Pensions, and there a leg is fitted on to him.


While he is there he is given training in the use of the leg, and then when he comes out of that hospital he has to accustom himself to the leg and to train himself for future industry. With the best will in the world he cannot be ready to enter into training for a future job until months have elapsed after his discharge from the second hospital.
I can understand the War Office saying, "After all, when we have discharged the man that is as far as we can go, and if you have a quarrel it must be with somebody else." I do not think the Government can ride off with that. The fact is that the man has been injured in their service, and if the War Office are not going to accept the responsibility of making a full maintenance grant they should see that another Department takes over that duty. It is pathetic to see these cases of young men; in fact it is pathetic in the case of anybody. As one hon. Member said, you can go over the whole gamut of cases which are in a shocking state. No one can say that eight weeks is anything like a normal period for a serious case. One hon. Member referred to the cases requiring plastic treatment. Then there are cases of tuberculosis, of wounds to the legs and often of wounds to the sight which possibly cry for more human sympathy than any other case.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again. It might be unfair in the circumstances to expect him to give us a Government decision on the matter now, but he is a comparatively young man and no one can say how long he may be in his present position. If he is defeated, or if he leaves that office, he will no doubt want to do what any other Member of Parliament likes to do, which is to say, when he looks back at his period of office, that he was able to do some good. I know of nothing more noble or better than that he should do what he can for the people who are serving in His Majesty's Army, and see that the limit of 56 days is cancelled and that no limit is placed upon the time required to make men fit to re-enter industry and earn their livelihood in ordinary competitive business.

8.2 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Petherick): I feel sure that the House will sympathies with me in my task

to-night. I do not in any way take exception to the fact that this very important matter has been raised. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said in his opening remarks that he approached the matter, so far as I was concerned, in all friendliness; I reply in nearly all friendliness, for a reason that I will mention. The hon. Member for Ipswich gave notice of his intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment a week from to-day, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had prepared himself to answer on that day, on behalf of the Government. I was sent for actually at 7·15 this evening and told that it was to be raised to-day, and that I was to make my maiden speech from the Government Front Bench in exposing the point of view of the War Office on this matter, as I will now try to do. There is nothing I dislike more than a speech which is read, but I hope the House will forgive me if in this instance I stick rather closely to what is admittedly a brief which has been given to me.

Mr. Stokes: I should not like it to be thought that I had done anything unfair. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that I would not have had the Adjournment to-day but for the fact that the Business for next week will not give the Secretary of State time to deal with the matter.

Mr. Petherick: I hope that there will be no misunderstanding on the matter. As I say, it was not till 7·15 that I knew the date had been changed and that I had to come to the House. I arrived here at 7·30, and my hon. and gallant Friend who sits beside me was good enough to take a few notes. First, I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he could not be here to take the Adjournment as he had intended. He had to go off almost at a moment's notice to a meeting and he deputed this rather difficult task to me.
It has been said during the course of this short Debate that the War Office is unfeeling and hard, and that it sometimes treats wounded soldiers unfairly when they are in hospital and discharges them too soon. I hope to be able to show within a very few minutes that that is not the case. I wonder whether, to start with, I might say something personal on the subject of the War Office. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said that he wished I had been on a back bench to-night, so that I


might have joined in an attack on the War Office. I do not remember in the course of my career as a back bencher ever having had to make any sort of attack on the War Office. Obviously, in the early stages of the war, they had, as we all know, an immensely difficult task. If I did join in any attack, I hope I should be very careful in ascertaining the facts.
Honestly, I think the hon. Member for Ipswich has indulged in a little exaggeration, a fault which I have observed in him from time to time. I have only been in the War Office since Tuesday, but in the course of my duties there I have had to deal with and answer many hundreds of letters from hon. Members of this House. Far from all the replies being hard and negative, as some of the speeches to-night would lead one to expect, the situation was quite to the contrary. I was not only pleased but even a trifle surprised by the very great trouble which always appeared to be taken in difficult cases presented by hon. Members. Among the letters which I have read in these last three days the number in which satisfaction has been given has been really astounding. First, I would like to deal with one or two of the things mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich and of which my hon. and gallant Friend beside me took notes. He spoke of young soldiers in hospital, wounded, being discharged prematurely before their wounds were fully healed. It is very difficult to give a positive answer to a general allegation of that kind. I would suggest to the hon. Member that when cases are put to him he should first write to the War Office about them and give a full statement of each case when very careful consideration would 'be given to the matter.

Mr. Stokes: I did not say that they were prematurely discharged from hospital, but from the Army.

Mr. Petherick: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I understood that they were discharged prematurely, and I took it to mean discharged from hospital. He mentioned the case of a young man who was discharged when suffering from a suppurating wound and had £2 a week disability pension. I cannot give an answer to-night on that specific case, but if he would send me the particulars I will do my best to look into them. I must say that be did cause a certain amount of confusion in our minds, because he raised

a number of questions to my right hon. Friend which appeared to be matters for the Minister of Pensions and on which my right hon. Friend could not really be expected to reply. He confused us still more by putting a lot of supplementaries, from which it appeared that the hon. Member was directing his mind to something rather different.

Mr. Stokes: That really is not a fair representation of what happened. I put my Question to the Secretary of State on the principle. Despite my protest, he insisted on transferring the matter to the Ministry of Pensions, but I was not prepared to let him get out of it.

Mr. Petherick: I do not think that the Secretary of State would wish to evade his responsibilities. After all, there are two Departments of State responsible for different branches of this administration and it is a little difficult to deal with what should be a War Office matter if it is confused with Ministry of Pensions matters.

Mr. Silverman: I think, with great respect to the hon. Member, that he does not quite understand the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). It is true that no one can reasonably ask the War Office to deal with grievances if they arise in the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. What is being said is that when the War Office makes up its mind that a man will not be fit for service again, instead of waiting until his treatment is complete, and maintaining him on Army pay and allowances until that date, and then transferring him to the Ministry of Pensions, it transfers him to the Ministry of Pensions too early. On that point it is surely perfectly relevant to say to the War Office: "Look at the result of what you do if you take that course. You take the man from a position in which he has his pay and dependants' allowances, and put him in a position in which at a stroke his emoluments are reduced, and he has to make a large contribution to his treatment." I do not think the hon. Gentleman can complain of that. It is a relevant part of the whole grievance.

Mr. Petherick: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point. I am hoping to reassure him and other hon. Members who are somewhat disturbed about this matter that the position is not as they fear. We


are not, in general, discussing the medical treatment of Services personnel, but the question of whether, during that treatment, they should remain on Services rate of pay. I should explain that the position, as I understand it, is that while in receipt of Service pay a member of the Services would ordinarily receive hospital treatment in a Service hospital or else in a hospital which has made particular arrangements for the treatment of such cases under the Emergency Medical Scheme. Some Ministry of Pensions hospitals—to which I refer in passing—also provide for the treatment of Service patients under the E.M.S. scheme, and also make special provision for particular disabilities. If, after invaliding, a Service man still requires treatment, the Ministry of Pensions is notified under the continuity of treatment scheme. As a result of that, arrangements are made for the man's further treatment elsewhere. When the treatment has been given in a Service hospital, the member of the Services, provided he is fit enough to be removed, is transferred either to a Ministry of Pensions hospital or to a Emergency Medical Scheme hospital. If the treatment has been given in an E.M.S. hospital, he can still be retained there if it is in his medical interest that he should be retained, while he may be transferred to a Ministry of Pensions hospital or an E.M.S. hospital nearer to his home. That is very important. The nearer a man gets to his own home, the more happy he is likely to be, the more cheerful and the more inclined to recover quickly. When treatment has been given in a Ministry of Pensions hospital, he is retained in that hospital.
I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). He mentioned the question of the tuberculosis patients. The arrangements I have mentioned do not apply to cases of tuberculosis, nor do they apply to certifiable mental cases who, when they are invalided, are transferred to the care of the responsible local authority. I have had one or two cases of that kind as a Private Member, and I think the hon. Member should, on the whole, be satisfied that that is probably the best method of treating these extremely sad cases, to which he pointed in the course of his speech.

Mr. Driberg: I said that I realised the administrative point of view, but asked if it would not be possible for the psychological effect on the men concerned to be taken more into account—whether some means could not be devised by which they could receive this good sanatorium treatment while still remaining on full Army pay.

Mr. Petherick: Being only a new-comer to the War Office, I am afraid I cannot give a positive reply on that point. Anything raised on the course of this Debate will be carefully considered. I am not saying that in the ordinary official sense. I mean that it will be carefully considered. In the course of my short experience, when things have been put up, they have been carefully considered, very often with extremely satisfactory results to the man in question.
In the light of what I have now stated about the treatment of tuberculosis and these other complaints, could I state again, rather more fully, the question which all three Service Departments—not only the War Office—have to consider? They have to make up their mind on a very difficult matter. Very often the question is whether Service personnel who are so severely wounded or incapacitated by illness that they cannot recover and be fit for active service for a period of some months, should nevertheless continue to receive full Service pay and allowances for periods longer than at present provided by the Regulations, so long as they remain in the Service hospital or Ministry of Pensions hospital. That is the main point we are discussing to-night. In the great majority of cases, I am informed that finality is reached in the matter of a comparatively few weeks or months, that is, they know whether the man is going to be fit enough to go back to active service or not. He then has a medical board. If he is found to be no longer fit to return to the Service he is discharged after a period of 56 days, and in place of his Service emoluments he passes to the appropriate rate of disablement pension, that is to say, he is handed over to the Ministry of Pensions. As hon. Members are aware pensions are laid down in the Royal Warrant and are administered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. T. Brown: Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain what takes place when the man has not fully recovered.


Is he not aware that the man suffers a loss in economic status by that process? Will he answer that?

Mr. Petherick: I think that is an extremely difficult point. I am hoping to come to it a little later, though I am afraid the hon. Member cannot expect a really authoritative reply to-night. I am doing my best in this rather difficult position.

Mr. Buchanan: We shall be quite sympathetic.

Mr. Petherick: I am aware of that. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is invariably sympathetic to anyone who is in my unfortunate position. After all, he fears he might be in the same position himself some day.
I think it is not any part of the case which hon. Members have made to-night, that men in this category should continue to receive 'Service emoluments for a very-long period if they obviously cannot be sent back to active service. To argue that case would be to argue that the rates of pension laid down in the Royal Warrant are inadequate, and that obviously is not a matter for the War Office but for the Minister of Pensions, and it can obviously be discussed on the Pensions Vote. The case with which I am now dealing is a much more difficult one, in which finality is not reached for a considerable period, and in which it cannot be established whether the man ought, in fact, to go back to active service or not.
During that time the man would be undergoing treatment in an Army or Ministry of Pensions hospital. It is in respect of those difficult cases that the complaint lies. The Regulations provide that, generally speaking, a man should continue on Service rates of pay for eight months, which, I understand, may be extended under different conditions to nine months in the case of psychotic illness, where further detention in a Government hospital may avoid the necessity of certification. I had to ask what "psychotic" meant. I understand that it covers a general group of mental cases. The period may also extend, in cases where artificial limbs have to be fitted, until they are fitted. It has been decided, after full consideration, that tuberculosis cases may also continue on Service emoluments for eight months, where men are receiving treatment in civilian or military hospitals.
I hope that that may be some reassurance to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). The period of eight months, during which Service personnel may in these circumstances be kept on full pay, represents a considerable advance on the previous practice. I am informed that until October of last year a soldier undergoing treatment in a Government hospital could be discharged from the Army 28 days after he was found to be permanently unfit. That was found to be much too short a period. The period was extended to 56 days, and on 1st March, 1945, to eight calendar months after his first absence from duty. I think hon. Members will realise that this matter has been very carefully examined, and these concessions have been made as a result of that examination.
In all these cases, there is a dilemma, to which I have already referred. It may become clear at a very early stage that a man may never be fit for active service again. But to revert him over-hastily to pension rates would be to treat rather shabbily those who have sacrificed their health to their country. That is very well understood in the War Office, and it is a consideration which is always borne in mind. It seemed, therefore, that the only thing to do in these cases is to fix a period, more or less arbitrary, after which the Service pay gives way to pension rates. The War Office has drawn the line at eight months, with a possible extension in the case of the psychotic patients, or in cases where artificial limbs have to be fitted, which was referred to by one hon. Member in the Debate. I think hon. Members will understand that the whole matter has been very carefuly reviewed, and that these further concessions are realty substantial concessions, which the House should welcome.

Mr. Tinker: Does that apply to all the Services, because the charge has been made that the other two Services are treated differently?

Mr. Petherick: I am coming to that point in a moment.

Mr. Turton: Will this new Regulation apply to men now in E.M.S. hospitals who have been discharged? Will they be taken back?

Mr. Petherick: I shall have to look into that matter. I am glad the hon. Member raised it, and I will write and let him


know the answer. I come to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme (Major Cundiff). That is the case of those men who have been disfigured facially. I suppose everybody is aware that they represent some of the difficult cases. Some treat their facial disfigurement as a "rub of the green," and do not mind, others are affected in their nerves. That can be well understood. All those cases have to be dealt with sympathetically, and it is the intention of the War Department to do so. With regard to these cases, the Government are considering whether they can make any special arrangement. I cannot make any promise nor can I give specific details, because the matter has not yet been fully considered; nor has any final conclusion been come to. But the matter is being examined, and if a fair, and, I hope, generous, solution can be arrived at, the House will be informed.
I now come to another point, raised by the hon. Member for Ince, about the different practices in the three Service Departments. Obviously I do not answer for any other Service Department, but I am informed that the general practice of the Service Departments is approximately the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what I am informed. Obviously, there must be minor differences of detail, but I know that an attempt is made to treat soldiers, sailors, and airmen, as far as possible, on approximately equal terms. I think I have dealt in general with the matter of the stage at which the change from Service rates of pay and allowances to pension rates should take place. I have not dealt with, and it is certainly not my business to-night to deal with, the question of the general adequacy or not of the pension rate. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.: But he has informed us that he is making an improvement in the financial provision for the men who, after discharge, continue treatment in hospital for a disability due to service. The position of these men has been under consideration for a very considerable time, and it has been decided that, during the remainder of the course of treatment which they are receiving at the time of discharge, they will be paid full treatment allowances by the Ministry of Pensions, without the deduction in respect of home savings which has hitherto been

made. This change will operate from the first pay day in June.
If I have not convinced the House that the War Office is doing its best to mete out substantial justice to all these men it will be my fault, not the fault of the Department which for the moment I have the honour to serve. I hope that hon. Members will consider these matters carefully, and see if they do not think that the concessions show an earnestness of endeavour to do the very best possible for those soldiers who, unfortunately, have to be invalided or to go to hospital, through no fault of their own, for service given to their country.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that the House will agree that if we remain not altogether satisfied it is not the hon. Member's fault. We would all like to congratulate him on the way he has dealt, at very short notice, so fully and so carefully, with a difficult question, which he knew aroused a good deal of feeling in all quarters of the House. I think I would like to add, not only congratulations on that, but on the general sympathetic attitude that he himself has shown in the way of dealing with the difficulties which we all recognise. If we are not satisfied altogether, it is because we are not altogether satisfied with the decision that has been taken, and I think the principal point is the one that he himself dealt with at some length.
There are two kinds of finality. Obviously, there is the stage at which the doctors can reach a final prognosis in the case—the stage at which they can say that, some day or other, the man will be fit again for active service or that he will never again be fit. That is finality of prognosis, and it is one kind of finality. Then, there is the finality of treatment. The claim that is being made on behalf of the men is surely a reasonable one. It is that, so long as the treatment is not completed, so long as active treatment is still necessary and may well improve the man's condition, so long as that stage continues, he should be treated exactly as he would have been treated if the prognosis were more favourable. In other words, if the doctors say "This man, with careful treatment, will go back to the Army," then the Army pays him his full pay and full allowances, and full dependency treatment. What we say is


that, when doctors have come to the conclusion that he will never be fit again for Army service, but may, with treatment, be a good deal better or a little better, then, they should treat him in exactly the same way and not hand him over to the Ministry of Pensions or to industry or civil life, until he is as fit to make a good job of it as he ever will be.
There is no reason why any arbitrary period should be fixed or why the arbitrary period should be eight months, 56 days or any other period. The period during which most of us feel he is entitled to get his pay and allowances, is the period that elapses between the date of his wound and the date on which it can be said "We can do no more for him; we have done our best, and there is nothing more we can do for him." As he is no longer fit for Army service, we say he should now be the responsibility of the Ministry of Pensions—out of hospital and until treatment finishes. That is a reasonable claim to make, and some of us find it difficult to understand why anybody wants to resist it.
I know it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. I think that most people who have considered this, have found it a little difficult to understand why the War Office makes any difficulty about this at all. Supposing they conceded this claim, who in the world would object? Who would feel aggrieved by it? The Treasury? Surely not. The taxpayer? Would he grudge the extra few thousands or tens of thousands of pounds that would 'be involved? I find it very difficult to believe. I cannot see what harm could be done by doing it, and I cannot see why anyone thinks that it is not just in itself. I cannot see who would be offended or aggrieved by it, and I hope that the War Office may, with all respect to the concessions made already, think about this matter again and see if they cannot make a clean sweep of the thing, so that, while a man is still under treatment for wounds, injuries or illness contracted in the service of the country, he should be paid his pay and allowances and should not be handed over to the Ministry of Pensions until you have done all that you can for him and not before.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: If it is in Order, I should like to congratulate the Financial Secretary to the War Office

on his very good temper and his very able reply. Hon. Members have spoken about finality, and I should like to point out, from experience, that there is no finality in this. May I take an actual case? In 1900, an officer was discharged from the Army as permanently disabled. In 1914, he rejoined and passed a medical examination. In 1915, he was again discharged from the Army as disabled, but, at the beginning of 1918, he passed a medical examination and finished the war in France. A case of that sort shows that it is no good to talk glibly about finality. Here is a case in which the Army Medical Corps decided that a serving officer was permanently disabled in 1900, and was discharged from the Army, but he was back again in France in 1914, was again discharged as permanently disabled in 1915, and was back again in France with the Army in 1918. I give that example to show how impossible it is to make hard and fast rules.
The Financial Secretary did indicate, undoubtedly, that although he could not commit the War Office, a certain degree of flexibility is allowed in these cases. I think that, if some hon. Members were able to look at the correspondence of the War Office—and the other Departments of State are not far behind—they must agree that this Department takes an immense amount of trouble in order to avoid hurting certain people's feelings. Before I came into the House I read through the whole correspondence with the parents of a soldier who had been killed and who thought that an injustice had been done. It was, obviously, a prejudiced view, and the letters I saw from the War Office were a perfect eye-opener to me, as compared to what I knew of the War Office in the reign of Queen Victoria. The Department clearly made every effort to meet every point put forward by this man's parents, although it was obvious that there were no grounds for their suggestion, and, to me, it is clear that the allegation that the War Office is unsympathetic is quite untrue. It is becoming a habit, because we have a Secretary of State who has the full confidence of the Army, to make attacks upon him in this House as an unsympathetic person. I know, from actual contact, that his devotion to the cause of the soldier has not been exceeded by any Secretary of State for War this country has ever had.

8.39 p.m.

Dr. Morģan: This is a difficult subject, I know, and I intervene only because it has a medical aspect. Certain hon. Members have talked about finality and prognosis. The whole issue is one of procedure, and on what basis the decision is to be made with regard to the Serviceman in hospital—whether, it is on his fitness to return to service, or whether his treatment is reaching a terminal stage. The whole machinery is wrong. It should not be a question at all while he is under treatment of whether he is finally fit for service in the Army or whether his treatment should be continued. When a man is undergoing treatment a mistake may easily be made in declaring him fit for rehabilitation.
It is the rehabilitation point I want to impress upon the hon. Member. Then and only then should a medical man come to a decision whether the Service grants should cease, or whether a man should be passed from the Service Department to the Pensions Department. To adopt any other procedure or line of demarcation would be unfair and wrong to the patient. You cannot do it, for example, in cases of skin disease. You have cases of tuberculosis. Medical boards should only come to a definite decision when a man has reached the stage when it is no longer a question of actual treatment, but of whether he is fit for rehabilitation or to be sent to some other place for retraining in order to follow his ordinary occupation. The point I want to make specially is that the whole procedure is wrong. These men should not be "boarded" by men employed by a Service Department or even by any Government Department, The whole medical arrangement with regard to Government Departments is entirely wrong. The moment it has to be decided whether a wounded soldier, or a soldier who is ill, is to remain in the Service or should be passed on to the Ministry of Pensions, the whole arrangement should be taken outside Government Departments and put under independent medical boards. He should be examined by men entirely independent of Service remuneration and promotion and away from Government Departments altogether.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: Are we to understand that in the hon. Gentleman's profession a certified medical man will give a wrong decision because he thinks it is

going to be to his advantage in that Government Department? I have never come across anything like that myself.

Dr. Morģan: I think the hon. Gentleman is so affected by psychosis because of his peculiar attitude to things in general, and that question makes it more obvious to me, as a medical man, that he really ought to study the subject more carefully. Medical men are human and sometimes make mistakes. It is the most difficult thing in the world, sometimes, to make a proper diagnosis, and even more difficult to make a proper prognosis.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: That is not my point. My point is that the hon. Member made a very grave accusation against the medical profession, and having benefited so much at their hands, after numerous wounds in various wars, I resent it, and would ask him to withdraw the aspersion.

Dr. Morģan: I am not going to withdraw any imaginary aspersion which the hon. Member says I made against the profession. I make no charges against the profession. I have been in the profession for 35 years and I do not make charges, but I accuse you of having a biased view.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Really, the hon. Member must not accuse me of bias.

Dr. Morģan: No, Sir; but you allowed the hon. Gentleman to make an accusation against me of having made a grave allegation against the medical profession. He is constantly doing that sort of thing. I resented the implication. When he says that I am making charges against the medical profession he does not know what he is talking about. The Financial Secretary to the War Office was very considerate in his reply, and made a welcome concession, and he ought to be congratulated upon it. I would ask him to see whether medical boards dealing with all classes of cases could not be taken out of the purview of the Departments, and made independent bodies. It is not that men do not want to come to a correct decision. They do, but a stage is reached when the patient wants to know exactly where he is and some decision of some kind should be made. When discharged from hospital a man will want to know how he is to manage in civil life.


The whole question, from the point of view of the medical profession, should be reviewed. These boards should not be composed of men employed by the Department, but of men who are absolutely apart from it. I have followed this subject for a long time, and I have seen pathetic cases. The decisions have been quite legitimately wrong, due perhaps to the difficulties of the case, the recurrence of symptoms, and the difficulty of knowing whether the disease is really constitutional or not.
It is because of the extreme difficulties in these cases, on which the future of the men so much depends, that I hope that the War Office, having made a concession to-day, will go a little further and deal with the question of rehabilitation. I

wish the War Office would give some consideration to the way in which such cases are handled by the Air Ministry. However, I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the very fine concession he has made, and hope that it will be a stepping stone to something better later on.

Major Cundiff: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him whether his suggestion—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already spoken, I think.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Nine o'Clock